• Awards Season
  • Big Stories
  • Pop Culture
  • Video Games
  • Celebrities

How Are Curfews Helpful During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

write a report on covid 19 pandemic

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, state and local officials explored ways to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus without instituting long-term full lockdown measures. There were, of course, a few exceptions to that mindset in the U.S.

Notably, San Francisco, California, erred on the side of caution. On March 11, 2020, the city banned public gatherings of 1,000 people or more; two days later, gatherings of 100 or more people were banned; and by March 16, 2020, a shelter-in-place order, effective March 17 at midnight, was announced for six Bay Area counties. Although San Francisco never faced the kinds of COVID-19 surges places like New York and Seattle did during the spring and summer, the city remained cautious .

Over the summer, its phased reopening — first, non-essential medical services, outdoor dining and so on — started and stuttered several times. By the fall of 2020, San Franciscans could head to indoor salons and, with limited capacities and mask mandates in place, eating at restaurants became a possibility — but the holidays threw a wrench into things. To mitigate the risks associated with holiday shopping, travel and dining, the city reinstated a stay-at-home order , further limiting retail shopping.

Was a Cautious Approach to Sheltering in Place and Curfews More Successful?

While not a full-fledged lockdown, San Francisco’s cautious approach and reliance on shelter-in-place mandates did seem to help “flatten the curve” and keep folks safe. For example, between March 2020 and late January 2021, San Francisco County reported around 30,877 cases and 297 deaths; meanwhile, during the same time frame, Los Angeles County reported 1.09 million cases and 15,897 deaths.

write a report on covid 19 pandemic

While Los Angeles County started out taking a similarly cautious approach, it continued to keep retail stores, shopping centers and restaurants open, even during the 2020 holiday season. Of course, as infectious disease epidemiologist Dr. Anne Rimoin noted on NPR’s On Point , Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the nation with “so many essential workers and great disparity…[and] overcrowded housing,” all of which provide more opportunities for the virus to spread.

All of this to say, staying at home, and away from communal spaces, works, but that doesn’t mean it’s a reality — or even an option — for many Americans. Which begs the question: If state and local lockdowns have proved helpful, what does that say about the effectiveness of curfews?

Did Curfews Help Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 During the Height of the Pandemic?

In comparing counties as vastly different as Los Angeles and San Francisco, it’s important to recognize that doing so isn’t always wise. After all, both areas have such vastly different epidemiological landscapes. Nonetheless, we see similar trends in other cities, counties and countries that err on the side of caution — the side of sheltering in place, lockdowns and curfews.

write a report on covid 19 pandemic

For example, countries like Australia and New Zealand , which implemented strict stay-at-home and curfew measures, in addition to hotel quarantine procedures for those who are entering the countries, had very few cases of COVID-19 throughout most of 2020 and early 2021. Stateside, officials on both sides of the aisle implemented curfews throughout the duration of the pandemic.

Sure, curfews were popular in states from New York and Connecticut to Ohio and California — but why? By and large, the purpose behind curfews was to limit nonessential travel and outings. That is, officials wanted to curb social gatherings, where social distancing and mask wearing might not have always been practiced. In many ways, it was a middle-ground approach: It didn’t disrupt folks’ lives like a full-on, community-wide lockdown would have, but it seemingly still reduced the spread of the virus, at least in part.

On the other hand, some believe this middle-ground approach is a more of a diplomatic half-measure than anything else. For example, Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, told The New York Times that curfews likely had a “modest impact” and that, in general, they are potentially most impactful when “considered as part of a whole series of interventions.”

In that same Times article, Dr. Gregg Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, had a more blunt reply, calling curfews “crude, inelegant instrument[s],” largely because they are one factor — one simple factor — in addressing an extremely complex issue.

The bottom line? At this point in time, it’s difficult to say with certainty that curfews played a key role in mitigating the spread — after all, curfews’ effectiveness isn’t something that can be measured in isolation. In the same way the spread of COVID-19 is full of variables, the responses to the pandemic have been equally multifaceted.

MORE FROM ASK.COM

write a report on covid 19 pandemic

  • Report Writing On Covid 19 For Students

Report Writing on COVID-19 for Students

A report, as you know, is a detailed account of a particular event or something that happened. Writing a report on a pandemic such as COVID-19, which shook the whole world, requires a lot of research. You should have a thorough knowledge of the details that have to be included in the report before you start writing one. Check out the following sections to learn what they are and also go through the sample reports to see how to structure your report.

Table of Contents

What to include in a report on covid-19, sample report on covid-19 around the world, sample report on covid-19 in india for students, frequently asked questions on report writing on covid-19.

Before you start writing your report, make sure you understand what the term ‘COVID-19’ refers to and gather all the significant information about it. Since COVID-19 is a pandemic, you have to try and understand the causes, symptoms, difficulties caused by the virus, aftereffects, precautions, aftercure and so on. Once you do this, also explore information about the number of cases reported, number of deaths caused, number of people cured, advancements in the field of medicine, etc. Having a thorough knowledge of these factors can give you a clear idea of what to write and how to structure your report.

While plague, cholera and flu were pandemics of the past, the current COVID-19 pandemic has put the whole world in a fix. With the first case of COVID-19 reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China in December of 2019, life on Earth had changed forever. Since then, everybody was locked inside, asked to cover their noses and mouths, wash their hands, keep themselves clean, use sanitisers every time they step out and step back into their houses, eat protein-rich and hygienic food, inhale steam, drink hot water and so on. For many, everything changed with the outbreak of the pandemic. A huge number of people lost their loved ones, some their jobs and some were even disturbed mentally rather than just physically. Life simply switched to a new normal.

The commonly found symptoms were fatigue, severe headaches, common cold, breathing difficulties, reduced oxygen levels, loss of appetite, taste and smell and so on. The government and the medical community continuously asked people to be on their guard, stay indoors and report to the nearest hospitals in case they identify any of the above stated symptoms in themselves or in the people around them.

As of December 2021, around 1 million new cases and around 7500 deaths were reported and the daily moving average of cases rose to 390 in the first week of December. However, with the development of vaccinations by scientists and doctors, the number of cases as well as the number of deaths have been reduced. Still, people have been asked to take precautions even though vaccinations have been administered to most people around the world.

The spread of COVID-19 in India began with the first case being reported in Kerala on January 30, 2020. In a year’s time, more than twenty-eight million people were tested positive for COVID. Around five million people – the highest recorded number of diagnosed cases – were from Maharashtra; the next in line was Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu with more than two million cases each, followed by Andhra Pradesh with over one million cases.

Owing to the widespread increase in the number of deaths, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a nationwide lockdown until further notice. All schools, colleges and offices were closed. Schools, colleges, community halls and convention centers were turned into isolation wards as hospitals were overflowing with patients. Healthcare professionals, along with many volunteers, worked day and night to treat patients and reduce the number of deaths.

After almost a year, vaccinations such as Covishield and Covaxin were launched in India. These vaccines were first administered to people above the age of sixty, followed by people from the age of forty to sixty, above eighteen and then younger kids. Vaccinations were given in two doses with an interval of one and a half to two months in between. With the government making vaccinations mandatory for travel and other purposes, almost all people had taken the vaccinations. A third dose of the vaccine (booster dose) also has been launched. The government has taken efforts to set up multiple vaccination booths in government schools and hospitals. With continuous efforts from the government, medical and police officials, and cooperation from the citizens, India has successfully seen a decrease in the number of cases and deaths, and an increase in the number of recoveries.

What is a report?

A report is an official document presented in writing or print about a particular event or happening.

What are the details to be included in a report on COVID-19?

The details to be included in a report on COVID-19 are as follows.

  • Difficulties caused by the virus
  • Aftereffects
  • Precautions
  • Number of cases reported
  • Number of deaths caused
  • Number of people cured
  • Advancements in the field of medicine

write a report on covid 19 pandemic

  • Share Share

REPORT on the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future

26.6.2023 - ( 2022/2076(INI) )

Special Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future Rapporteur: Dolors Montserrat

  • 001-010 (PDF - 130 KB)
  • 001-010 (DOC - 89 KB)
  • 011-016 (PDF - 116 KB)
  • 011-016 (DOC - 81 KB)
  • 017-017 (PDF - 139 KB)
  • 017-017 (DOC - 46 KB)
  • 018-027 (PDF - 127 KB)
  • 018-027 (DOC - 88 KB)
  • 028-037 (PDF - 125 KB)
  • 028-037 (DOC - 87 KB)
  • 038-042 (PDF - 109 KB)
  • 038-042 (DOC - 77 KB)
  • 043-051 (PDF - 132 KB)
  • 043-051 (DOC - 46 KB)
  • 053-058 (PDF - 125 KB)
  • 053-058 (DOC - 81 KB)
  • 057-057/REV1 (PDF - 101 KB)
  • 057-057/REV1 (DOC - 70 KB)
  • 059-064 (PDF - 106 KB)
  • 059-064 (DOC - 41 KB)
  • 065-070 (PDF - 113 KB)
  • 065-070 (DOC - 42 KB)
  • 071-076 (PDF - 110 KB)
  • 071-076 (DOC - 41 KB)
  • 077-081 (PDF - 109 KB)
  • 077-081 (DOC - 78 KB)
  • 082-090 (PDF - 144 KB)
  • 082-090 (DOC - 90 KB)
  • 091-097 (PDF - 138 KB)
  • 091-097 (DOC - 41 KB)

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

Explanatory statement, annex i: list of entities or persons from whom the rapporteur has received input, annex ii: covi special committee meetings, hearings & missions, minority position, information on adoption in committee responsible, final vote by roll call in committee responsible.

PR_INI_SpecialCom

on the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future

( 2022/2076(INI) )

The European Parliament ,

–   having regard to its decision of 10 March 2022 setting up a special committee on the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future, and defining the responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office of that committee [1] , adopted under Rule 207 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to Articles 3, 4, 9, 12, 16, 26, 36, 45, 52, 67, 114, 122, 151, 153, 168, 169, 173, 179, 180, 181, 187, 191, 202, 207, 216, 217, 218 and 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–   having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 2, 11, 12, 16, 21 , 31, 32 and 35 thereof,

–   having regard to the constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO), as last amended by the 51st World Health Assembly,

–   having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights, in particular principle 16 (healthcare) and 18 (long-term care),

–   having regard to the joint policy brief of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the WHO of 28 September 2022 entitled ‘Mental health at work’ and the WHO report of 14 September 2022 entitled ‘Health and care workforce in Europe: time to act’,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 15 June 2021 on drawing the early lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic ( COM(2021)0380 ),

–   having regard to the Council conclusions of 23 November 2021 on enhancing preparedness, response capability and resilience to future crises,

–   having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2022 on strengthening Europe in the fight against cancer – towards a comprehensive and coordinated strategy [2] and the work of the Special Committee on Beating Cancer (BECA),

–   having regard to the Council conclusions of 7 December 2021 on strengthening the European Health Union [3] ,

–   having regard to the Commission Decision of 16 September 2021 establishing the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority [4] ,

–   having regard to the report on the final outcome of the Conference on the Future of Europe of 9 May 2022,

–   having regard to Commission communication of 16 September 2021 entitled ‘Introducing HERA, the European Health Emergency preparedness and Response Authority, the next step towards completing the European Health Union’ ( COM(2021)0576 ),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 17 June 2022 entitled ‘Conference on the Future of Europe – Putting Vision into Concrete Action’ ( COM(2022)0404 ),

–   having regard to special report 13/2022 of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) of 13 June 2022 entitled ‘Free movement in the EU during the COVID-19 pandemic – Limited scrutiny of internal border controls, and uncoordinated actions by Member States’,

–   having regard to ECA special report 18/2022 of 1 September 2022 entitled ‘EU institutions and COVID-19 – Responded rapidly, challenges still ahead to make the best of the crisis-led innovation and flexibility’,

–   having regard to ECA special report 19/2022 of 12 September 2022 entitled ‘EU COVID-19 vaccine procurement – Sufficient doses secured after initial challenges, but performance of the process not sufficiently assessed’,

–   having regard to ECA special report 01/2023 of 11 January 2023 entitled ‘Tools facilitating travel within the EU during the COVID-19 pandemic’,

–   having regard to ECA special report 02/2023 of 2 February 2023 entitled ‘Adapting cohesion policy rules to respond to COVID-19: Funds used more flexibly, but reflection needed on cohesion policy as a crisis response tool’,

–   having regard to ECA special report 21/2022 of 8 September 2022 entitled ‘The Commission’s assessment of national recovery and resilience plans – Overall appropriate but implementation risks remain’,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 27 April 2022 entitled ‘COVID-19 – Sustaining EU Preparedness and Response: Looking ahead’ ( COM(2022)0190 ),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 2 September 2022 entitled ‘EU response to COVID-19: preparing for autumn and winter 2023’ ( COM(2022)0452 ),

–   having regard to the Commission report of 18 November 2022 entitled ‘State of Vaccine Confidence in the European Union’,

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic [5] ,

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU [6] ,

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/123 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 2022 on a reinforced role for the European Medicines Agency in crisis preparedness and management for medicinal products and medical devices [7] ,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2372 of 24 October 2022 on a framework of measures for ensuring the supply of crisis-relevant medical countermeasures in the event of a public health emergency at Union level [8] ,

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/2371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 on serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 1082/2013/EU [9] ,

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022 /370 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 establishing a European centre for disease prevention and control [10] ,

–   having regard to Directive (EU) 2022/2557 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the resilience of critical entities and repealing Council Directive 2008/114/EC [11] ,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal of 19 September 2022 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Single Market emergency instrument and repealing Council Regulation No (EC) 2679/98 ( COM(2022)0459 ),

–   having regard to Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC [12] ,

–   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 [13] ,

–   having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/648 of 13 May 2020 on vouchers offered to passengers and travellers as an alternative to reimbursement for cancelled package travel and transport services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic [14] ,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 9 December 2020 entitled ‘Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on track for the future’ ( COM(2020)0789 ),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 13 November 2020 entitled ‘New Consumer Agenda – Strengthening consumer resilience for sustainable recovery’ (COM/2020/0696),

–   having regard to the Commission proposal of 16 September 2022 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European media freedom act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU ( COM(2022)0457 ),

–   having regard to Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1004 of 14 June 2021 establishing a European Child Guarantee [15] ,

–   having regard to the report of the High-Level Group convened by Commissioner for Economy Paolo Gentiloni on post-COVID economic and social challenges of 1 March 2022 entitled ‘A New Era for Europe – How the European Union Can Make the Most of its Pandemic Recovery, Pursue Sustainable Growth, and Promote Global Stability’,

–   having regard to the ILO report of 31 October 2022 entitled ‘Monitor on the world of work. Tenth edition – Multiple crises threaten the global labour market recovery’,

–   having regard to the ILO report of 11 August 2022 entitled ‘Global Employment Trends for Youth 2022: Investing in transforming futures for young people’,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal of 8 March 2022 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating violence against women and domestic violence ( COM(2022)0105 ),

–   having regard to the fifth UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 24 March 2021 on the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child ( COM(2021)0142 ),

–   having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention),

–   having regard to the fourth UN SDG to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all,

–   having regard to the UNICEF report of December 2013 entitled ‘Children’s Rights in Impact Assessments: A guide for integrating children’s rights into impact assessments and taking action for children’,

–   having regard to the report of the European Expert Network on Economics of Education of 2022 entitled ‘Learning deficits due to the COVID-19 analysis – A literature review (2020-2022)’,

–   having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2021 on an intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience [16] ,

–   having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 1 December 2021 on the Global Gateway (JOIN(2021)0030),

–   having regard to the communication from the EU to the World Trade Organization (WTO) General Council of 4 June 2021 on urgent trade policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis,

–   having regard to the report of the WHO and the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies of 10 September 2021 entitled ‘Drawing light from the pandemic: A new strategy for health and sustainable development – A review of the evidence’,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 30 November 2022 entitled ‘EU Global Health Strategy – Better Health for All in a Changing World’ ( COM(2022)0675 ),

–   having regard to its resolution of 18 June 2020 on additional funding for biomedical research on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS) [17] ,

–   having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences [18] ,

–   having regard to its resolution of 19 June 2020 on the situation in the Schengen area following the COVID‑19 outbreak [19] ,

–   having regard to its resolution of 19 June 2020 on European protection of cross-border and seasonal workers in the context of the COVID-19 crisis [20] ,

–   having regard to its resolution of 10 July 2020 on the EU’s public health strategy post-COVID-19 [21] ,

–   having regard to its resolution of 17 September 2020 entitled ‘COVID-19: EU coordination of health assessments and risk classification, and the consequences for Schengen and the single market’ [22] ,

–   having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2020 on the impact of COVID-19 measures on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights [23] ,

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2021 on EU transparency in the development, purchase and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines [24] ,

–   having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2022 towards a common European action on care [25] ,

–   having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2022 on the impact of COVID-19 closures of educational, cultural, youth and sports activities on children and young people in the EU [26] ,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 7 September 2022 on the European care strategy ( COM(2022)0440 ),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 13 May 2020 entitled ‘Tourism and transport in 2020 and beyond’ ( COM(2020)0550 ),

–   having regard to the European Institute for Gender Equality’s ‘Gender Equality Index 2021’ of 28 October 2021,

–   having regard to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions report of 20 October 2022 entitled ‘Recovery from COVID-19: The changing structure of employment in the EU’,

–   having regard to the European Economic and Social Committee study of 12 January 2021 entitled ‘The response of civil society organisations to face the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent restrictive measures adopted in Europe’,

–   having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2021 on the trade-related aspects and implications of COVID-19 [27] ,

–   having regard to the joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on EU legislative priorities for 2023 and 2024 [28] ,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal of 16 March 2023 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020 ( COM(2023)0160 ),

–   having regard to the Commission proposal of 26 April 2023 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down Union procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human use and establishing rules governing the European Medicines Agency, amending Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 ( COM(2023)0193 ),

–   having regard to the Commission proposal of 18 April 2023 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures to strengthen solidarity and capacities in the Union to detect, prepare for and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents (( COM(2023)0209 ),

–   having regard to the Commission proposal of 3 May 2022 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Health Data Space ( COM(2022)0197 ),

–   having regard to the conclusions and recommendations of the study prepared for its Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) in December 2021 entitled ‘European pharmaceutical research and development – Could public infrastructure overcome market failures?’,

–   having regard to the conclusions and recommendations of the study prepared for STOA in October 2022 entitled ‘Fostering coherence in EU health research – Strengthening EU research for better health’,

–   having regard to the study by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies (DG IPOL) of November 2022 entitled ‘Impact of COVID-19 measures on democracy and fundamental rights – Best practices and lessons learned in the Member States and third countries’,

–   having regard to its resolution of 17 September 2020 on the shortage of medicines – how to address an emerging problem [29] ,

–   having regard to the DG IPOL study of January 2023 entitled ‘The effect of communication and disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic’,

–   having regard to the DG IPOL workshop of 8 March 2023 entitled ‘EU crisis preparedness and response’,

–   having regard to the DG IPOL workshop of 9 March 2023 on ‘Long COVID’,

–   having regard to the petitions received on the COVID-19 pandemic by the Committee on Petitions and to the work carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic on related issues,

–   having regard to the DG IPOL study of March 2023 entitled the ‘Social and Economic Consequences of COVID-19’,

–   having regard to the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) study of April 2022 entitled ‘Future Shocks 2022 – Addressing the risk and building capabilities for Europe in a contested word’,

–   having regard to the EPRS study of January 2023 entitled ‘Parliamentary oversight of governments’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Literature Review’,

–   having regard to the EPRS study of February 2023 entitled ‘The European public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for future cross-border health threats’,

–   having regard to the Commission staff working document of September 2021 entitled ‘Vulnerabilities of the global supply chains of medicines – Structured Dialogue on the security of medicines supply’,

–   having regard to its resolution of 10 June 2021 on meeting the global COVID-19 challenge: effects of the waiver of the WTO TRIPS Agreement on COVID-19 vaccines, treatment, equipment and increasing production and manufacturing capacity in developing countries [30] ,

–   having regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) health policy study of 17 January 2023 entitled ‘The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Future of Telemedicine’,

–   having regard to UN Human Rights Council resolution of 7 July 2022 on ‘Access to medicines, vaccines and other health products in the context of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’,

–   having regard the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights of 3 January 2023 entitled ‘Ensuring equitable, affordable, timely and universal access for all countries to vaccines in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic’,

–   having regard to the Siracusa Principles of 1984 on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

–   having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives [31] ,

–   having regard to the DG IPOL in-depth analysis of December 2020 entitled ‘The link between biodiversity loss and the increasing spread of zoonotic diseases’,

–   having regard to the WHO report of 29 June 2022 entitled ‘A health perspective on the role of the environment in One Health’,

–   having regard to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights bulletins entitled ‘Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – Fundamental Rights Implications’, in particular bulletin 1 of 8 April 2020, bulletin 2 of 28 May 2020 with a focus on contact-tracing apps, bulletin 3 of 30 June 2020 with a focus on older people, bulletin 4 of 30 July 2020, bulletin 5 of 29 September 2020 on the impact on Roma and Travellers, bulletin 6 of 30 November 2020 and bulletin 7 of 16 June 2021 on vaccine rollout and equality of access in the EU,

–   having regard to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Fundamental Rights Reports of 2021 and 2022,

–   having regard to the findings of European Ombudsman in case 1316/2021/MIG [32] and in joint cases 85/2021/MIG and 86/2021/MIG [33] ,

–   having regard to the extension of the committee’s term of office by three months, as announced in plenary on 18 January 2023,

–   having regard to Rules 54 and 207 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Special Committee on COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future (A9-0217/2023),

Introduction and overview

1.   Acknowledges that the COVID-19 has cost the lives of millions of people and has horizontally affected all levels and aspects of society, causing immense damage both in Europe and globally;

2.   Underlines that the EU, as well as the rest of the world, was not sufficiently prepared to cope with a crisis of this dimension or its shock waves, which have affected societies and economies worldwide, including the provision of continuous education services in the event of confinement;

3.   Stresses that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic caused the most challenging socioeconomic crisis that Europe has had to face since the Second World War; underlines the need for a coordinated response to support businesses, self-employed people, workers, persons outside of the labour market/force and especially vulnerable and poor persons;

4.   Recognises that many healthcare professionals, essential workers and volunteers sacrificed their lives and health to protect the European population during the pandemic;

5.   Acknowledges and appreciates the collective efforts and expertise demonstrated by healthcare professionals and researchers, which have been decisive in overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic;

6.   Considers that, despite shortcomings and gaps in health promotion, disease prevention, preparedness and response, the EU developed a common response to the pandemic and took actions to ensure the swift development and fair distribution of a diverse portfolio of vaccines across the European continent and globally;

7.   Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated a clear need to create effective governance structures and develop European policies for upstream prevention measures to reduce the risk of pathogen emergence; highlights, in this regard, that anthropogenic changes to the environment are facilitating the acceleration of the spread of animal pathogens to human populations;

8.   Regrets that some Member States, instead of adopting a European approach on measures and health approaches, did not show enough solidarity with those countries that were initially affected by the virus and that there was no immediate coordinated European approach on measures and health approaches;

9.   Highlights the excellent behaviour of EU citizens in the fight against the pandemic and emphasises that the cooperation of citizens with public authorities, through their commitment to the difficult adopted measures and to the lockdowns resulting from the pandemic, were indispensable to limiting the spread of COVID-19; recognises that, without this cooperation, the consequences of the pandemic would have been much worse;

10.   Highlights that the four freedoms are fundamental building blocks of the European project; deplores, therefore, the initial lack of cooperation and coordination among Member States concerning the free movement of essential goods, including personal protective equipment (PPE) and medical equipment, as well as delivery failures across the single market during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic;

11.   Acknowledges that unhealthy lifestyles and environmental pollution are two pertinent factors in the insurgence of chronic diseases; highlights that patients with pre-existing chronic conditions had more severe COVID-19 outcomes;

12.   Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic should be seen as an opportunity to speed up transformations for the digital and green transitions, including a significant uptake of digital health technologies, and that it serves as a stark reminder to prioritise the resilience and quality of our public healthcare systems to pay deeper attention to both physical and mental health across the EU; stresses that digitalisation contributed to ensuring the exercise of fundamental rights during the COVID-19 pandemic and enabled certain health and educational activities to carry on, including the digital COVID certificate, which enabled the freedom of movement;

13.   Highlights that the pandemic exacerbated existing structural issues in the organisation of the public health and care systems of the Member States, in particular insufficient funding for the sector all across the EU, the fragility of primary care services, a lack of appropriate surveillance monitoring and reporting programmes, workforce shortages, governance issues and shortages of medicinal products and medical equipment, while also leading to ‘burnout’ [34] among healthcare workers;

14.   Underlines that the pandemic also increased global inequities in production, supply and access to life-saving medical products and health technologies;

15.   Affirms the importance of surveillance, monitoring, prevention, preparedness, transparency and resilience in the face of outbreaks and health emergencies, particularly in terms of healthcare systems, supplies and services, in increasing open strategic autonomy and global diversification of development, production, distribution and supply in key areas such as critical and essential medicines; underlines the need to support the creation of local production capacities and to develop and strengthen existing capacities;

16.   Highlights the need to improve overall resilience in times of health crises by creating incentives to invest and develop production lines in the EU for medicines, vaccines and other medical equipment, as well as raw materials and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs);

17.   Is concerned about the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the European labour market, about unprecedented job losses, especially in the cultural and creative sector, and about the associated rise in poverty and divergences in living standards, which will especially affect young people, women and workers in low-skilled positions, in the informal economy and in precarious employment;

18.   Highlights that, in 2020, the world was unprepared to cope with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and that Europe had to face its most challenging socioeconomic crisis since the Second World War;

19.   Underlines the impact of the pandemic on society and the economy; recalls that the economic impact of the pandemic concerned, inter alia, the transport of passengers and goods and the availability of basic products, such as foodstuffs, and various raw materials, the lack of which lead to the shutdown of services;

20.   Stresses the need for a coordinated response to support workers, families, self-employed people, businesses, particularly small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), poor people and vulnerable groups, using relevant measures for each group; recalls that the crisis impacted different segments of society in different ways, amplifying social and economic disparities; recalls, therefore, that support should be prioritised for socially disadvantaged groups and those mostly affected by the crisis;

21.   Stresses that, while the focus was solely on preserving hospital capacity, care homes suffered from a lack of protective equipment, material, staff and expertise to fight the pandemic, resulting in excessive mortality rates among the elderly;

22.   Recognises that the pandemic has confirmed the crucial role of the social economy and social-economy entities in supporting our economic systems overall, as well as of health preparedness and response capacities, particularly when it comes to reaching and assisting young people, the elderly and vulnerable populations;

23.   Notes with regret that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected the mental well-being of those facing financial uncertainty, with particularly negative consequences for women and members of vulnerable populations, including ethnic minorities, the LGBTQIA+ community, the elderly, persons with disabilities and young people;

24.   Stresses that the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences have affected women and men differently and have highlighted existing inequalities and shortcomings with regard to gender equality and women’s rights;

25.   Acknowledges that the COVID-19 pandemic caused an unprecedented disruption to global education owing to widespread school closures, school dropouts and unprecedented learning loss, all of which have severe educational and social consequences, including for the mental health and nutrition of children and young people, and enhance the risk for increased violence and abuses; highlights that according to the WHO, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a 25 % increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide;

26.   Highlights that the pandemic has increased inequalities between countries and within countries, that life expectancy in Europe temporarily dropped following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and that healthcare and social welfare systems were put under stress across the EU;

27.   Observes that the medical emergency affected security and stability conditions and social relationships, changed ways of work and education, impacted various societal groups and increased global inequalities;

28.   Emphasises the importance of learning lessons and being better prepared for future health and other crises and stresses that a high level of human health protection must be ensured in the design, definition and implementation of all Union policies, legislation, funding and activities; stresses that we are still assessing the effects of COVID-19 on health and health systems and services, in particular regarding long COVID;

29.   Recalls that 65 million people worldwide and, according to the WHO, at least 17 million people in Europe suffer from post-acute sequelae caused by SARS-CoV-2 (PASC), while similar post-acute infection syndromes (PAIS) have also been observed as a result of other diseases; highlights that all PAIS including PASC have symptom clusters in common, in particular that they can lead to ME/CFS, while in some patients the same symptoms occur after vaccination (Post Vac);

30.   Notes that patients suffer from systemic multi–organ impairment conditions that are often misdiagnosed as psychosomatic and that post-exertional malaise is a key symptom of ME/CFS, but has also been observed in a number of PASC patients, which is why pacing needs to be respected; points out that patients urgently need diagnoses and treatment, which is why targeted research funding of translational and clinical research and ensuing pivotal studies are needed; recalls that women suffer significantly more often from PASC and that all age groups, including children and adolescents, are affected; recalls that PAIS is also a threat to the economy, as prolonged illness prevents people from returning to the labour market and increases their risk of economic hardship; points out, in the light of future pandemics, that a PAIS strategy is needed that comprehensively addresses the threat of chronic disease after an infection;

31.   Highlights that autoimmune diseases in general are poorly understood [35] and that PAIS are largely ignored as well [36] ; notes that the DNA aptamer drug BC 007 is addressing autoimmunity and has been successful in in healing long COVID in a small study at University Hospital Erlangen and that BC 007 has a high affinity to G-protein-coupled receptor binding autoantibodies with the effect of neutralising theses autoantibodies [37] ; recalls that financing for the phase II(b) clinical trial is lacking;

32.   Emphasises that scientific research and innovation – among other things – allowed the development and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines in record time, therefore saving millions of lives worldwide;

33.   Observes that it is essential for the Union to carry out anticipative research on potential current and future threats, such as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear risks, which require extensive preparation;

34.   Affirms that the COVID-19 pandemic has also been defeated thanks to innovation, the science that made vaccines available and the enormous collective intelligence demonstrated by health professionals across the EU;

35.   Stresses that a united and coordinated European health policy could be one factor in contributing to tackling the spread of false health information;

36.   Stresses that, in the absence of a united and coordinated European health policy, too much space has been left open to numerous non-scientific actors who have fed the media with dangerous, false information;

37.   Stresses that Europe can only pull through future health threats if the Member States stand together in solidarity, take responsibility and make use of the available single market instruments to better coordinate both pandemic preparedness and management, and deliver the needed added value to EU governments and their citizens;

38.   Underlines, in this regard, the need for better EU practices on transparency and democratic accountability in relation to crises countermeasures in order to strengthen citizens' support and trust;

39.   Recalls that future public health threats will mostly be transnational by nature and that, therefore, an analysis of the division of relevant competences under the Treaties in force is needed, as are possible reforms to better protect EU citizens and societies;

40.   Underlines the importance of decision-making based on scientific evidence and of consistent, adapted and coordinated communication taking account of the different levels of health literacy that citizens and businesses have from all the stakeholders involved, including the EU institutions, the Member States’ public authorities, the scientific community, the private sector and civil society organisations, such as representatives of health professional and patients organisations; underlines the need for different communication tools that take account of the different levels of health literacy that citizens and businesses have;

41.   Acknowledges that COVID-19 has laid bare the ways in which the market-driven model of drug development and production can work against the equitable and affordable distribution of emergency medical products; notes with concern the lack of preconditions attached to public investments in the COVID-19 vaccines, as well as medicine development that could have facilitated greater public returns on public investments;

42.   Calls for the EU to continue on the path towards establishing a European Health Union that brings true added value to the health governance of the Member States, especially in fields that cannot be covered by the Member States alone, while respecting Member State competences in this area, in line with the recommendations on health put forward by citizens in the report on the final outcome of the Conference on the Future of Europe; stresses that the future European Health Union must prepare the EU and the Member States to better prevent and combat future health crises and improve the resilience of European health systems; underlines, in this respect, the need to continuously evaluate the EU's preparedness for cross-border threats;

43.   Underlines that the protection of people's health and lives must be a priority in any public-policy decision; recognises that the majority of the actions taken during the pandemic were meant to safeguard the right to health and life, but that some actions nevertheless had a negative impact on other fundamental rights;

44.   Highlights that fundamental rights are constitutionally protected rights at all times, even under emergency conditions; highlights that, because the crisis was unprecedented and life-threatening, governments had to take swift action with very little preparation;

45.   Calls for civil society to be involved in supporting public authorities during times of crisis, where appropriate, in particular associations and networks that specialise in fundamental rights to better adapt policymaking to respect people’s rights;

46.   Notes that the law-making and scrutiny roles of national parliaments were undermined in some Member States, including through the delegation of legislative powers to the executive and the implementation of emergency and fast-track legislative procedures, and that these decisions must be appropriately reviewed to ensure that they abide by democratic standards;

47.   Welcomes EU efforts to step up solutions for global access to vaccines and medicines during the pandemic through collaborative initiatives such as the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator and COVAX, but recognises that the EU needs to be much more of a global leader to ensure that it plays a central role in the prevention of, preparedness for and response to future health threats;

48.   Emphasises the need for more global diversity in the production and supply of health products and pandemic countermeasures to prevent and alleviate the scarcity of supply and global inequities in access to these products;

49.   Welcomes the EU’s ambition to help foster health sovereignty in Africa and to support vaccine manufacturing in Africa and Latin America; urges the Commission and the Member States to fulfil these ambitions by ensuring full technological transfer to local producers and by establishing mechanisms and funding for their long-term financial sustainability;

50.   Notes with concern that, while COVAX aimed to procure and deliver 2 billion doses in 2021, less than 1 billion doses were delivered by the end of that year, with over 40 % of them being donated doses;

51.   Notes with concern that the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator delivered only 150 million COVID-19 tests between 2020 and 2022, or 3 % of the 4.8 billion tests required to meet its target of 100 tests per 100 000 persons per day;

1.   Health

a)   Building the European Health Union for the prevention of, preparedness for and response to cross-border health threats

i) EU Prevention of, preparedness for and response to cross-border health threats

52.   Believes that health promotion and prevention of, preparedness for and response to existing and future cross-border public health threats must constitute the foundations of the European Health Union, with a view to reinforcing the resilience, quality and equal access to healthcare systems in the EU for everyone, as well as for low- and middle-income countries outside of the EU and countries in the Global South, and to being better prepared in the event of a new pandemic or other large-scale health crisis;

53.   Recalls that providing adequate investments in public health systems and services at national and regional levels, including sustainable financing of national immunisation policies, and ensuring equal access to those services, improving integration and coordination of shared challenges in healthcare, and establishing joint vaccine and treatment procurement schemes to ensure a fair distribution thereof must be a priority in order to achieve those objectives;

54.   Notes that one of the main hypotheses supported by the scientific community on the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spill over; recognises that the single most effective and cost-effective way to prevent pandemics of zoonotic origin is to avoid, where possible, pathogen spill overs to humans, wildlife and other animals in the first place; recommends, therefore, that the One Health approach be implemented through public policies, legislation and research, with the engagement of multiple sectors [38] ;

55.   Deplores the fact that most Member States have cut public health spending in recent decades; underlines that those financial cuts were instrumental in public health authorities’ failure to detect COVID-19 in its earlier stages, which resulted in them being unable to later face the pandemic with appropriate tools and resources when most needed;

56.   Calls on the Member States to invest more in primary healthcare and the integration of socio-health aspects, including by making full use of the EU4Health programme, while addressing the challenges related to this fund, in order to increase capacity and flexibility in public healthcare services;

57.   Calls for the organisation of healthcare services to be optimised to prevent excessive pressure on hospitals or emergency services, in particular in times of crisis;

58.   Urges the Member States to develop a public health crisis management plan and suggests making use of financial instruments, such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) or the Cohesion Fund, and investing in a preventive approach to health, the healthcare workforce and education;

59.   Recalls the difficulty in accessing diagnostic tests – such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests – during the first waves of the pandemic, which prevented verification of the existence of the infection, forcing people’s isolation periods to be prolonged after contact with people who had tested positive or exhibited symptoms;

60.   Calls for measures, such as the use of state-of-the-art testing and screening technologies for early diagnosis, to be considered, as they would increase relevant knowledge in different sectors of healthcare systems;

61.   Welcomes the upcoming creation of a European network of reference laboratories to support national reference laboratories, promote good practices and encourage voluntary alignment by the Member States on diagnostics, testing methods and disease surveillance, notification and reporting;

62.   Urges the Commission and the Council to propose recommendations on national screening schemes and programmes accessible to all patients;

63.   Highlights the need to provide primary care professionals with more resources and calls on the Member States to implement the lifelong learning schemes as required by relevant EU legislation in order to ensure that their skills remain relevant and are able to effectively respond to public health crises; calls for the EU and its Member States to adequately finance primary care and to make it accessible to everyone;

64.   Welcomes the fact that the Commission established scientific advice resources early on, such as the scientific advice platform for COVID-19, in cooperation with experts from the Member States, who helped to inform policymaking in a coordinated manner; underlines the importance of multidisciplinary scientific advice for good policymaking;

65.   Recalls that Regulation (EU) 2022/2371 on serious cross-border threats to health states that Member States should provide the Commission with an update on the latest situation with regard to prevention, preparedness and response planning and implementation at national level; calls on the Member States to urgently carry out stress tests on their healthcare systems to identify weaknesses and verify that they are prepared for a possible resurgence of COVID-19, as well as any future health crisis;

66.   Emphasises that the Member States and the EU institutions should mobilise scientific expertise in crisis situations and beyond in a coordinated and multidisciplinary manner, through established or legally provided for channels and structures, depending on the nature of the identified threat, or measure to be prepared, and that the corresponding assessment prepared by experts should be developed using a fully transparent process and based on principles of excellence, independence, impartiality and transparency;

67.   Emphasises that experts consulted in this context should not have any financial or other interests that might be considered prejudicial to their independence, and that they should make a declaration of their financial and other interests, updating it annually and whenever necessary in line with the procedures provided for at Member State or EU level; considers that experts should also disclose any facts of which they become aware during their involvement in such procedures that might reasonably be expected to involve or give rise to a conflict of interest;

68.   Calls on the Commission to conduct a pilot study on leveraging public investments in health research and development in the EU, to ensure better access to affordable medical products, and to create a dynamic and well-funded research ecosystem;

ii)   Role of the Regulation on serious cross-border threats to health, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA)

69.   Acknowledges the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/2371 on serious cross-border threats to health, Regulation (EU) 2022/123 on the EMA’s extended mandate, Regulation (EU) 2022/2370 reinforcing the ECDC’s mandate [39] and the creation of HERA as examples of important EU instruments that will enable the EU to become more resilient and effective, as we move towards a more sustainable and one-health-oriented approach to preventing, preparing for and managing any future health emergency;

70.   Calls for greater coordination among the EMA, HERA, the ECDC and national competent authorities, in cooperation with industry, to enable manufacturing to be scaled up during health emergencies;

71.   Encourages taking stock of the coordination among Member States and the relevant Union agencies or bodies, research infrastructures and the WHO, in accordance with international health regulations; calls for the EU to be given an enhanced ability to coordinate and develop homogenous strategies on these matters by fully utilising the current competences provided for by the Treaties and to explore possible reforms in the interest of citizens;

72.   Recognises the creation of HERA as a much-needed body to improve the EU’s preparedness for health emergencies, by ensuring the availability of and equal access to medical countermeasures and by contributing to preventing, preparing for, detecting, and rapidly responding to health emergencies; underlines, nevertheless, that, in order to fulfil its mandate and reach its objectives, HERA should become an independent EU agency with sufficient funding; considers that, if HERA is upgraded to a stand-alone agency, it would increase the level of transparency and democratic scrutiny;

73.   Believes that HERA could help anticipate, incentivise and co-develop rapid, equal and sustainable access to medical products during and beyond crisis times; emphasises that cross-border health threats require an international response and that HERA, along with other Commission directorates, should therefore be equipped with the necessary legal and financial tools to ensure technological transfer, including to producers in low- and middle-income countries;

74.   Deeply regrets the use of Article 122 TFEU for the establishment of HERA, and that Parliament was excluded from the creation of this important part of the European Health Union;

75.   Stresses that Parliament should have scrutiny powers over and the ability to monitor HERA, thus contributing to accountability and transparency; suggests that Parliament be invited as an observer to the health crisis board to be established under Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2372;

76.   Recalls that, by the 31 December 2024, the Commission must carry out an evaluation to review the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2022/2371 on serious cross-border health threats by HERA, as well as an assessment of the need to establish HERA as a distinct entity;

77.   Looks forward to the establishment of a memorandum of understanding among the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, HERA and other Union agencies and bodies, as soon as HERA becomes a full-fledged agency;

78.   Stresses the importance of keeping additional vaccine and medicine manufacturing capacities available in Europe and welcomes the Commission proposal for the EU FAB project, a network of ‘ever-warm’ production capacities for vaccine and medicine manufacturing that can be activated in the event of future health crises and essential medicines shortages, as a response to the need for the EU to strengthen its industrial upstream and downstream production activities concerning diversified vaccine and vaccine technology production for APIs, medicines, vaccines, medical products and other therapeutic solutions in all phases of the process;

79.   Stresses that in its resolution on the shortage of medicines [40] , Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to assess the possibility of creating one or more European non-profit pharmaceutical undertakings that would operate in the public interest to manufacture medicinal products in the absence of existing industrial production in order to guarantee security of supply and prevent possible shortages of medicines in the event of an emergency;

80.   Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with Parliament, to play a focal role in the cooperation among all relevant actors, in identifying medical needs and in setting research priorities; believes that these partnerships are instrumental in accelerating responses to pandemics and health threats, while maintaining a secure capacity; underlines that partnerships with the private sector should be steered and aligned with the public interest and that public returns on public support for research and development (R&D) should be ensured;

81.   Notes that the unprecedented, urgent demand for medicines and medical countermeasures during the COVID-19 pandemic tested the resources of the EMA and national competent authorities and necessitated resorting to ad hoc measures;

82.   Acknowledges the pivotal role of the EMA in implementing measures to enable flexible and fast regulatory processes, while ensuring the safety and efficacy of vaccines and medical products, as well as its pharmacovigilance work , rapid delivery of scientific advice, rolling review and conditional marketing authorisation; highlights the potential and added value that this approach provided during the pandemic, including the rolling review;

83.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to explore applying a similar approach beyond pandemic situations and for the greater harmonisation of regulatory procedures, including accelerated approval times and reduced costs, while ensuring patient safety; emphasises that these medical products will ultimately need to go through full marketing authorisation to maintain safety and efficacy safeguards;

84.   Calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of making the EMA’s decisions on the approval of vaccines and medical products directly applicable in the Member States, in the event of a crisis;

85.   Considers that having all regulatory agencies well staffed is a pre-requisite to allow for speed and flexibility and calls on the Commission and the Member States to invest more in the resources of the EMA and national medicine agencies in order to increase their capacity;

86.   Recommends that, within the course of its activities, HERA implement strong stakeholder involvement mechanisms, similar to those established by the EMA, in order to ensure that future pandemic contingency plans are well scrutinised and that unforeseen impacts for other disease conditions are avoided wherever possible;

87.   Calls for greater European coordination for timely epidemiological forecasting and surveillance led by the ECDC, in cooperation with the EMA, HERA and the Member States, and for studies to be carried out on the use of existing medicines on new diseases, improving the EU’s overall preparedness capacity;

88.   Notes with appreciation that, under the EMA’s new mandate, its Emergency Task Force took over the activities of its COVID-19 pandemic task force and became a permanent body of the EMA, improving interactions with the Commission, developers of medicinal products and medical devices and academics, as well as coordination with other EU agencies;

89.   Observes that the Commission granted conditional market authorisation to vaccines for COVID-19, after receiving the EMA's recommendation and its consultation with the EU Member States, on the basis of the fact that the benefits of the vaccines far outweighed their potential risks, and with mandatory, rigid post-approval safeguards and controls; recalls that the prompt availability of vaccines on the market, complemented by the use of conditional marketing authorisation, contributed to a remarkable reduction in deaths and hospitalisations in the EU, as well as overall protection from the most severe effects of COVID-19;

90.   Underlines that conditional market authorisation is an appropriate tool to accelerate vaccine authorisation in a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic; recalls that conditional authorisation should be limited in time and that companies should apply for regular authorisations;

91.   Calls on the Commission, the EMA and the competent authorities to capitalise on all the pragmatic efforts made during the COVID-19 crisis, in particular as regards regulatory flexibility, with a view to effectively tackling medicine shortages, including in emergency situations; supports the use of this procedure for medicinal products of major therapeutic interest in crisis times and beyond, where appropriate;

92.   Notes that the Member States and the EU institutions did not detect the seriousness of the emerging COVID-19 pandemic in a timely manner, and that the delay in communication and slow reaction led to the spread of the disease to become a pandemic;

93.   Considers that this was the result of, inter alia, a lack of data sharing by Chinese authorities, a lack of timely data sharing by the Member States and a lack of adequate funding and resources for public health surveillance, pandemic preparedness and epidemiology;

94.   Calls for further clarity regarding the distribution of responsibilities between the ECDC and HERA in regard to pandemic surveillance to avoid overlapping competences;

95.   Supports the ECDC’s extended mandate, as it provides greater resources and additional areas of competence to enable better monitoring of diseases in the EU, to improve European prevention, preparedness and response and to monitor the impact of communicable diseases on major non-communicable diseases;

iii)   EU Strategies on vaccines and therapeutics

96.   Reaffirms that the EU vaccination strategy has been a success and that the primary goal and achievement of the current generation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is to avoid serious disease, death and morbidity; recognises that vaccines authorised by EMA are effective in this regard, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 vaccination process; underlines that timely vaccinations have saved approximately 250 000 lives [41] and averted cases of long COVID in the EU;

97.   Recalls the importance of health literacy and health education in preventing, preparing for and responding to health threats and that it contributes to the population’s better understanding of the countermeasures for and risk assessment of different threats; underlines that health education campaigns based on the latest scientific evidence could help improve population behaviour in this regard, and should take into account people who are experiencing exclusion and the needs of people with learning disabilities;

98.   Considers that the speed at which researchers developed effective vaccine protection was unprecedented and that the EU demonstrated leadership in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic;

99.   Emphasises that the development and deployment of a diverse portfolio of COVID-19 vaccines made up of multiple platforms to address varying virus variants and better patient outcomes constituted a game changer in the pandemic, enabling the best choice for each patient and increasing public confidence in vaccination, and underpinned the important role of vaccine research and development incentivised by public subsidies;

100.   Underlines that the fast response was the result of decades of public investments in and findings from infectious disease research, such as HIV and tuberculosis, and the capacity to scale up production; recommends attaching better conditions to public funding for the future, regarding transparency standards on the use of public funds, know-how transfers and affordability;

101.   Stresses that the revision of EU pharmaceutical legislation should ensure that Europe remains an attractive destination for investments in research and innovation and should create a business environment where the pharma industry works in the interest of patients and citizens; reaffirms its conviction that this efficiency could have already been improved if the Union were less dependent on certain essential pharmaceutical and medical products;

102.   Acknowledges the key role played by testing in containing the spread of the virus; reiterates the need to stockpile equipment and reagents for tests and swabs; believes that it is important to invest in innovative techniques for detecting SARS-CoV2 and other viruses;

103.   Welcomes the EU strategy on COVID-19 therapeutics; emphasises that therapeutics are complementary to vaccines and are particularly beneficial for the protection of immunocompromised people and other groups subject to lower vaccine efficacy;

104.   Stresses the importance of continued monitoring and assessment of COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA and the Member States, including tracking potential side effects; encourages creating easy ways to report side effects and regularly publishing information on monitoring results;

105.   Stresses that Europe can only pull through future pandemics if the European family stands together in solidarity and responsibility, and fully utilises its capabilities to better coordinate and deliver the needed added value to EU governments and their citizens, through a better collaboration with the outermost regions (ORs) and overseas countries and territories (OCTs) often exposed to specific diseases and zoonoses, whose knowledge is likely to advance research;

106.   Stresses the need for a comprehensive overview on the development of COVID-19 in different parts of the world, such as ORs, to better identify and address the differences owing to tropical climates; recognises the importance of considering experiences and knowledge from ORs in terms of infectious diseases and zoonosis; highlights the need for a network of experts in the ORs and OCTs for better anticipation and medical knowledge in all environments;

107.   Stresses that the outermost regions have been more affected economically by successive confinements, in particular because of their geographical remoteness and their heavy dependence on deliveries of basic necessities; adds that the closure of ports and limits on freight have had a particularly negative impact on all of these territories, leading to a very significant rise in the cost of living; recommends that a minimum service be introduced in the future to ensure the supply of raw materials and essential consumer goods to these territories, in accordance with Article 349 TFEU;

108.   Insists on the need for enhanced cooperation with experts from the ORs and OCTs on the management and treatment of tropical diseases, such as dengue, chikungunya and zika, which create collateral damage on top of COVID-19;

109.   Notes that vaccination strategy, not only for COVID-19, remains a national competence and calls for a stronger coordination role for the EU to harmonise the timeline, scope and outcomes of vaccines administration in all the Member States; recognises vaccination as a key pillar of resilient health systems, societal well-being and a healthy economy;

110.   Underlines the importance of addressing communicable diseases as a cross-border threat to public health, requiring common objectives and minimum standards for vaccination campaigns, in order to overcome the major disparities in vaccination coverage between and within Member States and to reduce vaccination hesitancy;

111.   Notes with concern the transfer of financial risks related to liability for serious adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines to the Member States and the risk of this becoming a standard practice; emphasises that, for pandemics and publicly procured vaccines, the standard rules for liability for medicines should be upheld; urges the Commission and HERA to ensure that product liability remains with manufacturers;

112.   Calls on the Commission to consider common European vaccination schedules for transmissible infections, if necessary; recommends sustainable financing for national immunisation policies to ensure equitable access to vaccination services; recognises the need to develop policy actions to protect immunocompromised populations;

113.   Acknowledges that the decline in vaccine confidence is a worrying trend in many European countries; calls on the Commission and the EU Member States to address vaccine hesitancy and tackle misinformation by promoting public information and education through a clear, transparent communication plan, leveraging digital technologies;

114.   Regrets that the Union did not accompany the implementation of the vaccination campaign with a strong awareness-raising campaign on the benefits of vaccination; calls for the Union to counter misinformation and foreign interference in the EU’s vaccine strategy more effectively;

115.   Underlines that COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of deaths [42] and severe clinical disease; calls for the EU and its Member States to transparently communicate adverse reactions; believes that full transparency, fairness and solidarity would build trust in vaccination;

IV) Resilience, accessibility and sustainability of national health systems

116.   Notes that, at the beginning of the pandemic, many Member States’ health systems and services were unprepared to cope with the magnitude of such a crisis; points out that budget cuts to public healthcare systems, in particular equipment, personnel and facilities, were one of the key causes of Member States not being adequately prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic; highlights the need to promote resilience and sustainability in national health systems by investing in public health;

117.   Underlines that, although the impact of the pandemic was different in each Member State, they faced common obstacles, inter alia, in national coordination, cooperation with experts, research funding, data exchanges and cooperation and solidarity within Member States; highlights, moreover, that common challenges involved a sudden increase in demand for healthcare services, bed shortages in intensive care units (ICUs), staff shortages, a lack of preparedness plans, unclear governance structures, insufficient strategic stocks of personal protective equipment, inadequate infection prevention and control plans in healthcare settings, general distress while providing citizens with appropriate healthcare services and difficulties in effectively communicating with the public; underlines that establishing and updating surveillance, monitoring and preparedness plans and determining clear governance structures for emergency situations at both EU and national level should be a priority; underlines the need for resilient hospitals and healthcare centres that are capable of being rapidly and efficiently converted to facilities to help during epidemic emergencies, while avoiding disruptions to regular healthcare services; highlights the role that the growing health workforce shortage crisis, including ‘brain drain’, plays in this context and underlines that this trend is undermining the ability of certain Member States to deliver adequate public healthcare services; urges the Commission and the Member States therefore to take concrete action to address this crisis in the near, medium and long term;

118.   Welcomes the solidarity actions taken by private companies to make up for the lack of personal protective equipment, medical equipment and alcohol necessary for hygiene products and to accelerate their production; emphasises the importance of developing a priority list detailing essential equipment and supplies to be stored, of ensuring adequate patient care and of minimising infection risks for healthcare personnel;

119.   Highlights the valuable role of community pharmacies and recognises the extraordinary work and efforts of pharmacists during the first months of the pandemic, as they served on the front lines to provide support to citizens in very difficult conditions and, on many occasions, without access to protective equipment; calls for greater recognition of pharmacies in rural areas as essential services, as they enable such areas to retain their populations and ensure the availability of medicines; suggests that pharmacists could play a more active role in epidemiology surveillance to contribute to monitoring the insurgence of communicable diseases (CDs) and non-communicable diseases (NCDs); urges the Commission to include the pharmacy sector in EU public health initiatives, and Member States to include them in their health, care and research programmes, as it proved to be a key sector in facing the pandemic, as it offered patient testing, vaccination and first-contact advice;

v)   Effectiveness of gathering and sharing data, developing digital health and digitalising health systems (including transparency of clinical data), EU Health Data Space

120.   Notes that surveillance services were not fit for purpose and exposed the need to set up dedicated systems for the new SARS-CoV-2 pathogen; welcomes, in this regard, the extended mandate of the ECDC, which should improve the monitoring of diseases in the EU;

121.   Welcomes the Commission proposal for a regulation on the European Health Data Space, as the EU lacked an effective mechanism for data collection and exchanges, as well as epidemiological reporting, during the pandemic; notes that SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a significant public health threat and highlights the need for ongoing surveillance and data collection and exchanges, including through the establishment of alert systems for upcoming pandemics in EU Member States;

122.   Believes that the EU needs further regulatory simplification where appropriate, the coordination and acceleration of clinical trials at EU level and the digitalisation of health systems, while fully respecting safety and efficacy clauses, and in line with the public interest and returns;

123.   Emphasises the urgency of speeding up the digitalisation of healthcare systems across the EU and of ensuring the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the process, especially that of patients and healthcare professionals; recognises that this digital transformation must be reflected in clinical practice and must include a bottom-up implementation model, with the involvement of healthcare professionals across the EU;

124.   Underlines the importance of statistical data in medical research, with a particular emphasis on the need for sex and gender disaggregation, interoperable information systems and compliance with the European data protection framework; acknowledges the potential of sharing clinical trial data to transform public health and healthcare systems, while safeguarding privacy and protecting the rights of citizens and healthcare professionals; highlights, in this context, the importance of interoperable information systems; highlights the European Health Data Space as a key initiative in this field;

125.   Calls for collaboration on building infrastructure for multicentre clinical trials and for improved coordination at EU level, including reporting results and making data available to fellow researchers, in line with EU legislation; recalls World Health Assembly Resolution 72.8 [43] , which calls for the enhanced dissemination of and access to costs from clinical trials; underlines, moreover, the important role of comparative clinical trials in optimising health outcomes by comparing approved interventions; calls therefore on the Commission and the EMA to take steps in both of these regards;

126.   Calls on the Commission, in the context of the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation, to further develop the electronic product information (ePI) and promote digitalised and efficient regulatory processes where appropriate, as one of the tools to mitigate medicine shortages in case they occur, while always ensuring availability of a paper information leaflet for all products; urges the Commission to work with the EMA and the EU regulatory network, including the industry and all relevant stakeholders, to develop and implement the use of ePI for all medicines in the EU, in all the languages of the Member States where the medicines are marketed;

127.   Stresses the importance of preparing national healthcare systems for the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) and information technology offered in this field; supports, if necessary , adapting existing EU regulatory frameworks, including soft law, in order to allow national healthcare systems and the scientific community to benefit from AI assistance in the fields of clinical practice, treatment, biomedical research, public health and health administration, while ensuring the security and appropriate treatment of patients receiving AI-assisted healthcare and making sure that the EU data protection framework, patient’s fundamental rights and non-discrimination laws are respected;

128.   Notes that healthcare institutions and services faced heightened cybersecurity threats in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic; calls on the Member States and the EU institutions and agencies to introduce measures that enhance the security of digital networks in order to protect health institutions and patients from cyberattacks and to ensure the protection of health data and the ability of institutions to operate normally at all times, especially during public health emergencies, while respecting the EU data protection framework;

129.   Reaffirms the need to improve the security of critical infrastructure, such as power grids and financial systems, and to guarantee their functioning, while protecting them against any emergency, such as cyberattacks; stresses the importance of measures to increase awareness of cybersecurity risks and of providing training to individuals and organisations on how to protect themselves, as these cyberattacks may also have an impact on patients, hospitals and healthcare services and systems;

vi)   Boosting the healthcare and social workforce in the EU to be prepared for the next crisis

130.   Is concerned that investment in public healthcare has not been prioritised in all of the Member States, leading to staff shortages, overall negative effects in this area and consequent low levels of resilience in public health systems and services in the face of new possible emergencies and the demographic transition;

131.   Calls for the EU to take a stronger role in guiding, coordinating and steering the improvement of Member States’ public health systems; notes that the use of new medical technologies by healthcare personnel can boost efficiency; calls attention to the shortage of medical professionals and calls for investments in healthcare services, including personnel, to end the systemic use of short-term contracts, to improve healthcare professionals skills and to support Member States in improving working conditions, especially in rural and remote areas and less-developed regions; calls on the Member States, to this end, to make full use of the existing EU legislative framework and funding in order to promote the mobility of healthcare professionals across the EU, during both their educational and professional careers, including through Erasmus Plus;

132.   Encourages investments in health and care personnel, by facilitating access to education and training, supporting Member States in improving healthcare workers’ working conditions and promoting gender balance in this line of work in order to attract the next generation of health and social care workers and address the shortage of medical and care professionals, as well as brain drain within the Union;

133.   Calls for adequate investments in improving the number of medical personnel and their skills, the amount of medical equipment and the number of hospitals, as well as in innovative health technologies that can contribute to such enhancement; stresses the need to include mandatory modules dedicated to crisis management at the European level in the training programmes of professionals;

134.   Believes that the Member States should report, as part of the European Semester, the investments they have made in their health workforces and public healthcare systems under projects linked to EU health policies and funded by the EU; further believes that the Member States should regularly report on the impacts of their investments on the availability and accessibility of health and care services for all, as well as on healthcare workers mobility, to better develop retention strategies for healthcare workers in Europe;

135.   Calls for an EU-level study on the pay, conditions and factors that result in gender imbalances for health workers across Europe in order to inform recommendations on this matter;

136.   Emphasises the importance of monitoring and tracking health workforce availability across Europe at an EU level and recommends the exploration of opportunities to ease and better organise cross-border redistribution of workforce in specifically relevant circumstances (e.g. border areas), such as through leveraging mutual professional recognition instruments; highlights the crucial role of physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals in providing treatment and calls for wider recognition of their experience and knowledge;

137.   Stresses that many health and social care workers have suffered from COVID-19 and long COVID conditions and that, as a result, they have faced difficulties in fully returning to work; acknowledges the strain and burden placed on medical professionals during the pandemic and the need to give them the necessary psychological and professional assistance; insists that the Member States must take strong, coordinated measures to protect occupational safety and health (both physical and mental), in particular during and after a health crisis; acknowledges the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare professionals;

138.   Points out the deteriorating situation as regards the availability of healthcare professionals in certain Member States, in particular those with lower GDP levels and thus lower levels of attractiveness; urges the Commission and the Member States to take concrete action to address this crisis;

139.   Reiterates that the EU needs to take a stronger role in guiding and orientating the improvement of public health, as all Member States should consider public health and social care to be a priority for public investments and not a cost to be minimised; emphasises that improving the health of the population is a strategic investment and a moral obligation for our societies and economies and therefore calls for the EU and the Member States to recognise the essential role of public healthcare;

140.   Highlights the need to upskill and reskill healthcare workers throughout their professional lives, as provided for in relevant EU legislation, in order to be better prepared for potential emergency and crisis situations; calls on the Commission and the relevant EU agencies to organise targeted training activities for healthcare workers in close cooperation with professional health organisations and patient organisations, including on interdisciplinary One Health trainings; emphasises the importance of joint cross-border training, the sharing of best practices and familiarity with the neighbouring public health systems in cross-border regions;

141.   Calls for regional cooperation with neighbouring Member States to overcome the lack of medical personnel in the event of a major crisis; recommends that health workforce availability across Europe be monitored at EU level;

142.   Recognises the fundamental role played by civil protection personnel, firefighters and law enforcement forces during all phases of the pandemic, providing medical support, screening assistance, logistical aid, vaccination-strategy support and safety during the periods of confinement;

143.   Underlines that healthcare professionals’ wages and working conditions are factors that currently contribute to staff shortages in the EU; calls on the Member States to implement Directive (EU) 2022/2041, which calls for national plans to be drafted on improving collective bargaining coverage in the health and social care sector;

VII)   Role of primary care in building resilient health systems and services

144.   Underlines the importance of primary care and ‘assistance at proximity’ in building resilient social and health systems that facilitate the continuity of services during emergencies and contribute to avoiding hospital congestion and collapse by sustaining the provision of essential local services; highlights the vital role played by primary and territorial care in the monitoring and surveillance of CDs and cross-border health threats, ensuring that services are available to all, including in remote and rural areas, and that improved community-based care allows those who need it the most to be reached; emphasises that improving primary care should be accompanied by increasing early detection capacity, facilitated through specific investments;

145.   Welcomes the European care strategy, which underlines the role of social care and calls for a more integrated approach between the social care and health sectors;

146.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to rethink the role of primary care, focusing on its potential to relate to patients on a day-to-day basis, to improve prevention and promote greater community capacity to respond to health threats, in close coordination with healthcare systems;

147.   Emphasises the importance of primary care in the ongoing provision of COVID-19 vaccines and in increasing access to routine vaccination; calls for urgent reinforcement of primary care with necessary human and technological resources, so that it can facilitate epidemiology and surveillance work related to COVID-19; encourages the use of innovative methods, such as telemedicine in healthcare services, to complement primary care and to facilitate access to care and treatment; supports building a primary healthcare system that can also engage with specialists and guide patients through their diagnostic journeys;

148.   Emphasises that universal health coverage is essential to ensure that all people, including the most vulnerable populations and marginalised communities, receive timely, effective and affordable healthcare; underlines that universal public health access plans should be designed and developed in an inclusive manner, with the full participation of civil society, patients, health workers, employers and social partners; further underlines that the effectiveness of health systems depends on community engagement, participation and perceived legitimacy;

149.   Recalls that public health systems must be free of financial and non-financial barriers and other factors leading to inequality and discrimination; calls for permanent access to medical consultations, nursing and psychological services to be ensured, either with telemedicine and tele-assistance or in epidemiologically safe spaces in hospitals;

150.   Recommends more coordination between the EU health and digital agendas to help create better communication and interlinkages between primary and secondary care; highlights the need for coordination and contingency protocols among primary care, general social services and specialised services, such as elderly care homes; advocates developing community mental health services in primary care;

151.   Underlines that, to provide a timely, effective, affordable and adequate response to people with health needs, including the most vulnerable populations and marginalised communities, universal health coverage is essential; highlights that, during health emergencies, priority services and delivery mechanisms need to be adapted, in particular outreach activities and screenings using laboratory and diagnostic testing capabilities;

152.   Highlights the divergences in healthcare systems and services and in access to healthcare services among Member States and among regions within Member States, in particular in remote and rural areas, outermost regions, peripheral islands, overseas countries and territories and even in some urban areas; notes the challenges in accessing healthcare services in these areas, which have led to the emergence of ‘medical deserts’; calls on the Commission to propose minimum standards for healthcare services and rights throughout Europe and suggests the use of cohesion policy to help address these divergences and supplement EU funds to reduce discrepancies;

153.   Notes that economic support, government responses and stringency indices differed depending on each Member State's income support, fiscal measures and restrictive measures; highlights that different demographics and cultural specificities, as well as tourism as an active business sector in southern countries, islands, island states and other outermost regions, led to different pandemic socioeconomic impacts;

154.   Notes that lessons learned showed insufficient investments at EU and Member State level in comprehensive, integrated epidemiological surveillance systems and the collection and management of validated, comparable and interoperable data, leading to poor planning and preparedness;

155.   Regrets that the public authorities and private institutions involved in setting the research agenda did not prioritise R&D investments in pathogens considered dangerous for public health; regrets that, despite coronaviruses have already been recognised as pathogens with pandemic potential before the COVID-19 pandemic, R&D efforts were partially limited owing to a lack of commercial interest; acknowledges, however, that previous investments in R&D facilitated the development of vaccines;

156.   Highlights the extensive reliance and importance of public funding from the Commission and Member States for the development of COVID-19 medical countermeasures and vaccines, which was key to achieving results in a short period of time; recalls the need to respect conditionalities regarding governance, transparency, availability and equal access when public funds are involved;

157.   Highlights the role of public funding in the development and production of COVID-19 vaccines and the need for clauses ensuring the availability and affordability of end products;

viii)   Preventing shortages of critical medicines and protection devices: monitoring the manufacturing capacities of the EU health industry

158.   Considers that COVID-19 has highlighted the existing phenomenon of medical shortages in the EU, including of a large variety of products, which have become more frequent over the last decade; notes that shortages may also result from manufacturing problems, quality issues, unexpected spikes in demand, parallel imports/exports and more; notes that drugs affected by these shortages include a large variety of products (including cancer treatments, antibiotics, vaccines, anaesthetics and medication for hypertension, heart disease and disorders of the nervous system), with differing reasons for these shortages;  

159.   Emphasises the need for the Union to guarantee the proximity of RescEU reserves in order to ensure access to medical countermeasures for rural, remote and outermost regions; calls for better coordination to enable timely stockpiling and joint procurement of medical countermeasures in serious cross-border emergency situations, in line with the EU's Civil Protection Mechanism, rescEU stockpile and WHO recommendations;

160.   Requests improved coordination to avoid overstocking practices within Member States and to establish a European emergency reserve of essential medicines at high risk of shortages; notes that uncoordinated national actions can negatively impact medicine supply across the EU;

161.   Regrets the persistent shortages of medicine and medical equipment and devices and recommends that the Commission conduct an EU-wide study on the causes of drug shortages, with a particular focus on the problems caused by shortages of generic drugs; considers that shortages in healthcare industries during the pandemic, beside export bans, were mostly due to stockpiling and distribution issues and a lack of diversified suppliers; emphasises the importance of demand forecasting and early communication with vaccine and medicine manufacturers to prevent shortages, as well as the need for early communication on strain selection;

162.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to examine the possibility of creating one or more EU non-profit pharmaceutical establishments that operate in the public interest to manufacture medicinal products of health and strategic importance for healthcare, in the absence of existing industrial production, in order to complete and guarantee the security of supply and prevent possible shortages of medicines in the event of an emergency; welcomes the inclusion of robust measures for the prevention of medicine shortages in the EU pharmaceutical legislation;

163.   Highlights the proposal from the Conference on the Future of Europe to establish a list of medical equipment and devices of major therapeutic interest and to maintain a strategic reserve of medical supplies, drugs, vaccines and respiratory therapy devices;

164.   Advocates new EU legislation on medical equipment, treatments and medicines to provide appropriate transitional periods and guarantee the necessary supply to meet demand, especially in times of crisis;

165.   Underlines the need to establish European risk surveillance for shortages and increased transparency for medicine stocks to better anticipate shortages;

166.   Believes that preparedness for and responses to pandemics and other serious health threats require long-term commitments and sustainable investments, including the continuous development of medical countermeasure reserves, to protect citizens and encourages increased collaboration with European manufacturers in the future;

ix)   EU health open strategic autonomy: strengthening research and innovation investments

167.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to reduce their dependence on third-country trade partners for APIs and key medicines and to act decisively in preventing drug shortages, address production and supply chain vulnerabilities in sourcing medical products and APIs and make enhanced use of joint procurement;

168.   Encourages better data sharing on supply and demand forecasts between relevant stakeholders, earlier projections on potential shortages, including regular standardised reporting from the industry, and greater transparency in the production and distribution chain; recalls that national pricing should be based on fully transparent factors, such as the real costs of public and private R&D and added therapeutic value; urges the adoption of a coordinated industrial approach to strengthen the EU's strategic autonomy on health;

169.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to create a large-scale, mission-oriented, public European health R&D infrastructure that operates in the public interest to manufacture medicinal products of health and strategic importance for healthcare, in the absence of existing industrial production, in order to support the EU in overcoming market failure, guaranteeing security of supply and preventing possible shortages of medicines, while contributing to greater preparedness for facing new health threats and emergencies;

170.   Highlights that public funding played a key role in the development and production of COVID-19 vaccines, with the majority of R&D funds being of public origin; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that public funding for biomedical R&D provides adequate returns in the public interest and guarantees the availability and affordability of end products in all Member States; highlights the importance of expanding emergency funding mechanisms to pharmaceutical SMEs and of reducing red tape for inventors of medical products, such as medical devices, to maintain R&D and the production of life-saving products in Europe;

b)   Access to medical countermeasures

i)   Vaccine production, storage and distribution, including supply chain resilience, EU open strategic autonomy and the availability of critical pharma and medical products

171.   Stresses that stepping up research on and development of responses to pathogens with epidemic and pandemic potential and increasing sequencing capacities prior to epidemics and pandemics are crucial; acknowledges the limited initial knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 and its genetic sequence, characteristics and epidemiological behaviour, such as its methods of infection and transmission and its rates of infection, transmission and mutation, requiring research before vaccine development, which affected the industry’s production capacity to develop and deploy vaccines;

172.   Emphasises the importance of enabling SMEs to benefit from emergency funding arrangements in order to deliver innovative medical products, as well as the need to include SMEs in measures supporting the scale-up of research and manufacturing, while taking into account the administrative burden;

173.   Notes that high-income countries facilitated the vaccine market at the beginning of the pandemic, hosting most of the large manufacturing facilities, and that major pharmaceutical corporations enhanced the global production and supply of life-saving medical tools through the ownership of intellectual property (IP), technologies and data;

174.   Notes that the pandemic has put pressure on global supply chains, including for the pharmaceutical sector, resulting in disruptions and unpredictability in the supply of vaccines, medical supplies, equipment and other countermeasures;

175.   Underlines the importance of introducing EU and national policies aimed at strengthening global supply chains to support the production and free flow of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, and at removing export restrictions within the single market;

176.   Reiterates the key role of the ECDC in aggregating surveillance and monitoring data at EU level and in facilitating forecasting of future demand for vaccines and therapeutics against infectious diseases;

177.   Calls for vulnerabilities in the global value chain to be assessed and requests the development of shortage prevention and management plans across all Member States; calls for the continual improvement of early warning systems and information sharing between countries on medicines shortages, at both European and international levels, and for the Commission to introduce temporary measures in times of crisis to mitigate shortages and facilitate the circulation of medicines among Member States;

178.   Notes the prevalence of generic medicine shortages and stresses the importance of generic, biosimilar, value added and affordable medicines in preventing shortages of medicines, in consistently increasing equitable access for patients and in making healthcare systems sustainable in the EU, where access is currently still uneven;

179.   Highlights the opportunity for a new framework to support the research, development, production and use of drugs with new approved indications; invites the Commission to harmonise the marketing of scarce medicines in the market with packaging, labelling and leaflets that are, where possible, multilingual and digital, while ensuring the availability of information in paper format;

180.   Recalls the critical need for global health and for global supply chains to develop local production and distribution capacities in the EU, remote regions, such as ORs and OCTs and in low- and middle-income countries, in particular for pharmaceutical research, technology, development and production and in line with social standards and industry due diligence;

181.   Calls on the Commission to use the industrial, IP and pharmaceutical strategies to encourage public funding of R&D projects in order to adhere to the principle of open science and to bridge the persistent gap in research and medicine production through product-development partnerships, technology transfers and the creation of open centres for research and production;

182.   Understands that the political and economic consequences of the response to the COVID‑19 pandemic occurred before health systems were overwhelmed, notably by the collapse of global supply chains;

183.   Notes that, globally, sustainable vaccine development, production and delivery depend on strong and transparent supply chains; calls on the WTO to take action to ensure the smooth flow of supply chains and delivery of vaccines, medicines, medical equipment and medical products; recognises the vital role that therapeutic innovation can play in saving lives by freeing up capacity in ICUs and supporting patients living with PASC;

184.   Acknowledges that the EU is the leading exporter of vaccines globally and that it contributed to the worldwide solidarity efforts with the donation of 500 million doses of vaccines, although these doses regrettably had fast-approaching expiration dates, which made it difficult for receiver countries to use them in time and resulted in many of them having to be discarded; recognises the EU's position as a frontrunner in these efforts;

ii)   Joint procurement agreements and advanced purchase agreements (negotiations, transparency, liabilities and enforcement)

185.   Believes that the EU needed a common approach for vaccine procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic; recognises that negotiations for the advanced purchase agreements were beneficial at a time when the development of vaccines was uncertain and production lines were prepared without knowing which vaccine would actually succeed or whether the vaccines would actually be approved; acknowledges the success in preserving competitiveness among manufacturers and vaccine technologies; highlights that, through the advanced purchase agreements, most of the financial risks related to vaccine development and production were taken by public authorities, thus making it possible to speed up development times;

186.   Recognises that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the exclusivity of the negotiations and the early engagement from the Member States made the process successful, and that procuring as a block secured greater purchasing power;

187.   Believes that, in the future, the EU will also benefit from joint procurement of vaccines, medicines, healthcare supplies and medical equipment, in particular for expensive and innovative medicines, especially for the treatment of rare diseases; believes furthermore that advanced purchase agreements could be beneficial in the event of extraordinary cross-border public health challenges;

188.   Underlines that joint procurement and advanced purchase agreements could prevent counter-productive competition among Member States, maximise the EUs’ bargaining power, provide the EU and its Member States with more flexibility according to their needs and ensure the availability of medical products for all EU residents, regardless of their home Member States;

189.   Stresses the need for better regulation of such contracts to prevent imbalances in profits and market positions, and to protect and promote competitiveness in future procurement and advanced purchase processes;

190.   Regrets that some Member States adopted export restrictions on medical equipment, which initially hindered an EU-wide response to the pandemic;

191.   Calls for the EU and its Member States to ensure that manufacturers remain liable, in line with EU product liability legislation;

192.   Suggests that such practices could be explored in areas such as rare diseases and cancer through clearly outlined milestones, objectives and commitments agreed on by all parties involved;

193.   Highlights the need to ensure high levels of transparency in these initiatives and to apply lessons learned from the joint procurement of COVID-19 products;

194.   Stresses that joint procurement must not risk having a negative impact on supply flows by increasing the risk of shortages in the EU;

195.   Welcomes the reference in the pharmaceutical strategy for Europe to the fact that actions in the area of public procurement can foster competition and improve access to medicines; urges the Commission, in the context of Directive 2014/24/EU [44] , to swiftly propose guidelines for the Member States, notably on how to best implement the most economically advantageous tender criteria, looking beyond solely the lowest price criteria; emphasises that security of supply is an essential factor and must be used as a qualitative criterion in connection with the awarding of public pharmacy contracts and calls for tendering for the supply of medicines; emphasises the importance of diversified supplies and sustainable procurement practices for pharmaceuticals; proposes that investments in the manufacture of active ingredients and medicinal end products in the EU should also be retained as an essential criterion, as well as the number and location of production sites, the reliability of supply, the reinvestment of profits into R&D and the application of social, environmental, ethical and quality standards;

196.   Regrets the lack of transparency in the joint procurement agreements negotiated by the Commission with pharmaceutical companies, which was partly justified by respect for the right to confidentiality; stresses that transparency in the work of the EU institutions is of the utmost importance, especially under the conditions of the unprecedented pandemic crisis; recalls that joint procurement agreements should be carried out in a transparent, timely and effective way, with clear and transparent stages for the process, scope, tender, specifications, timelines and formalities defined and calls for the adoption of a transparent policy for advance purchase agreements and joint procurement;

197.   Notes and reiterates the European Ombudsman’s findings on maladministration from   the Commission and recommendations concerning transparency and record keeping of meetings, modified working procedures, public procurement, scientific advice and lobbying activities of the European institutions during the pandemic;

198.   Emphasises that joint procurement procedures should abide by high standards of transparency in relation to Union institutions, including the European Court of Auditors and Union citizens, in accordance with the principle of transparency as referred to in Article 15 TFEU and stresses that in order to achieve transparency, Parliament should scrutinise contracts concluded under the joint procurement procedure; considers that the Commission should provide Parliament with complete, timely and accurate information on ongoing negotiations and give access to tender documents including concluded contracts; encourages transparency in disclosing information related to the delivery schedule of medical countermeasures, terms of liabilities and indemnifications, and the number of manufacturing locations, while taking into account the protection of commercially sensitive information and essential national security interests;

199.   Recommends that joint negotiations for procurement be performed by identified representatives of the EU and its Member States, with adequate skills and a clear mandate;

200.   Encourages the Member States to share information on pricing and delivery dates of medical countermeasures when a joint procurement procedure has not been used to purchase medical countermeasures in order to provide an increased level of transparency and thus allow Member States to access and negotiate in more equitable ways;

c)   COVID, communicable and non-communicable diseases; addressing PASC as part of an EU PAIS strategy

201.   Expresses concern about the high prevalence of PASC, and observes that the risk factors for developing PASC, its pathophysiological mechanisms and its long-term impact are still being researched;

202.   Underlines that, while research is ongoing, the research available implies that long COVID and Post Vac have a similar pathogenesis, as the spike protein of the virus plays a key role, and that both can lead to ME/CFS;

203.   Recalls that PAIS now occur much more frequently after COVID-19 infections in the form of PASC, but are also known   to result from other bacterial, viral and parasitic infections; underlines the benefit of taking a broader view on research and treatment of PAIS;

204.   Highlights that the EU needs a strategic approach to address PASC, focusing on increasing research, training and primary care awareness;

205.   Recalls the scientific findings related to PASC and the need for public authorities to concretely support and help people suffering from it, using adequate resources and policies;

206.   Recommends the development of meaningful dedicated and targeted research, EU-wide translational research and clinical trials, with view to concrete diagnoses and treatments (other than mainly observational studies) and the exchange of comparable data, experiences and best practices among Member States; recommends enhanced coordination at European level for research on PASC;

207.   Calls for the establishment of a common definition, biobanks, reference centres and registries, including a vaccination register with improved pharmacovigilance based on clear EU standardised reporting duties, to address the effects of PASC and severe adverse effects of vaccination adequately;

208.   Calls for the recognition of PASC as an occupational disease for healthcare and social care workers;

209.   Calls for adequate funding for basic research, as well as for translational research and clinical trials, such as pivotal studies on promising substances, with the meaningful and high-quality involvement of PASC patients to align research priorities with patients’ needs; advocates sufficient resources to design and develop adequate treatments;

210.   Calls on the Member States to facilitate support, including telemedicine, home-based outpatient care service and doctors' home visits for families or persons with the double burden of working and taking care of a child, adolescent or parent, and for house-bound or bed-bound persons with care-intensive needs, such as post-exertional malaise in general;

211.   Recognises the importance of certified multidisciplinary outpatient clinics and rehabilitation centres for PASC patients across EU countries that take the specific needs of PASC patients into account, including post-exertional malaise, among other things, and that apply the latest evidence; encourages the development of targeted educational programmes in the medical sector and large-scale public awareness campaigns on the existence of PASC as a serious disease in order to reduce stigma; notes that women suffer significantly more often from PASC and are particularly prone to being misdiagnosed as psychosomatic, which is not only stigmatising but can also lead to harmful treatment;

212.   Urges the EU and its Member States to address the long-known issue of misdiagnosing PASC, Post Vac and ME/CFS patients as psychosomatic;

213.   Is concerned that the mildness of symptoms has contributed to less diagnostic testing and to therefore the detection of fewer cases of COVID-19 in children; calls for a registry of children and adolescents with symptoms of persistent COVID-19, along with appropriate follow-up to minimise the effects of the disease;

214.   Calls for the EU and its Member States to take PASC infections in children seriously, in particular the risk of developing long-term disability, by addressing special educational and developmental needs and developing support structures such as homeschooling;

215.   Urges the EU and its Member States to consider long-term consequences when deciding on measures or ending restrictions, particularly for the most vulnerable populations;

216.   Calls for more research to determine the underlying causes, frequency and best treatment options for PASC, including long COVID, post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, Post Vac and other PAIS and the long-term consequences such as developing ME/CFS and exchanging experiences and approaches in order to address the impact of its effects;

217.   Requests the establishment of an EU network of experts on these diseases with coordinated surveillance systems, including data disaggregated by different subgroups from each Member State, including in ORs and OCTs, using consistently defined cases and methodologies and encompassing the impact of these conditions on health, employment and the economy;

218.   Emphasises the need for additional funding and prioritised calls for projects focused on biomedical research on PASC and for better recognition of PASC, including research on adverse vaccination effects at Member State level;

219.   Calls on the Commission to use Horizon Europe funding for dedicated and targeted PASC research and to aim for cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry and the European Partnership on Rare Diseases to fund long COVID research;

220.   Stresses the importance of providing adequate assistance and support to people suffering from PASC, includingPost Vac patients; calls on the Member States to provide appropriate support for those whose daily lives or ability to work have been affected in order to mitigate PASC as a poverty trap;

221.   Acknowledges the need for improved medical education and training for health and social care professionals working with PASC and for the inclusion of ME/CFS within the European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases;

222.   Urges the Commission, the Member States and manufacturers to be transparent about the potential side effects of vaccines, including known side effects identified by the EMA, and to communicate about this, as well as about the benefits and efficiency of vaccinations, which prevent millions of deaths and severe clinical disease, in a consistent, comprehensive and coordinated way, guaranteeing the safety of patients, by, among other things, calling on the EMA to publish guidelines for aspirating vaccines in order to avoid adverse effects;

223.   Is convinced that full transparency, the recognition of adverse effects and solidarity with patients is the best way to counter vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, and disinformation;

224.   Notes the high percentage of immunocompromised patients in ICUs during the pandemic and regrets that sufficient attention has not been paid to the consequences of the pandemic on them, since targeted measures were not systematically integrated into the EU's response; recalls that immunocompromised patients and patients with NCDs were among the most affected during the pandemic, as they were at greater risk of developing severe symptoms from COVID-19, and ultimately payed an enormous price in terms of loss of life;

225.   Highlights that patients with CDs and NCDs suffered heavy consequences for their health owing to delays and disruptions in diagnostics and treatments, particularly for HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, hepatitis, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and rare diseases; stresses the decreased survival chances, complications and further deterioration of quality of life for patients resulting from delayed access to care;

226.   Acknowledges that the ramifications of health emergencies extend to individuals; calls on the Commission and Member States to promptly devise strategies and actions to safeguard susceptible patients amid public health crises;

227.   Emphasises that the COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating effects on cancer patients across Europe, as countries reported cancer screening to be the most disrupted service, with delays in diagnostic, treatment, care and survival services for cancer patients, creating long-term consequences and impacts on patients with metastatic and advanced cancer, as postponed diagnoses inevitably result in cancer being diagnosed at a later stage, making treatment more complex and costly and reducing survival probabilities;

228.   Notes that disruptions in healthcare services led to a decrease in cancer screenings and diagnoses during the pandemic and is concerned that disruptions in cancer screenings and postponed diagnoses inevitably result in cancer being diagnosed at a later stage, making treatment more complex and costly and reducing survival probabilities [45] ;

229.   Notes with concern that CD and NCD services were disrupted owing to cancellations of elective care, the closure of screening programmes, government or public transport lockdowns hindering access to the social and health facilities and lack of staff and of medical infrastructure;

230.   Recognises the importance of air quality for human health and advocates for the alignment of EU air quality standards with WHO guidelines;

231.   Stresses the need to monitor and research the effects of the disruption of medical services for CDs and NCDs and to gather identified best practices to ensure the continuation of these services during a public health emergency; calls for the adoption of an EU strategy to anticipate and monitor the impacts of serious health threats on people affected by CDs, NCDs and other conditions;

232.   Recalls that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, women of working age had an increased risk of contracting COVID-19, were more likely to be diagnosed too late in the event of severe cases of COVID-19 and were consequently more likely to die;

233.   Recognises the rise in overweight and obesity among children and adolescents during the pandemic and the increased risk of severe COVID-19 health outcomes for people living with obesity; regrets that policies to prevent and address obesity and comorbidities have not been sufficiently prioritised by the Member States;

234.   Observes that most countries that included NCD services in national COVID-19 plans prioritised services for the four major NCDs: cardiovascular disease services, cancer services, diabetes services and chronic respiratory disease services; highlights that some countries have recognised mental health as an area to prioritise;

235.   Highlights the fact that scientifically recognised, integrative medicine approved by public health authorities brings benefits to patients in relation to the parallel effects of several diseases, such as cancer, and their treatment; stresses the importance of maintaining access to integrative medicine care and of developing a patient-centric approach when defining emergency plans to react to health emergencies in order to ensure continuity of care for patients and better quality of life;236.  Recognises that restrictions and lockdowns contributed to a surge in mental health issues that disproportionately impacted women, people with disabilities, young people, children, the elderly, immunocompromised individuals, their carers, and other socially distanced groups of people, and underlines that these should be measures of last resort;

237.   Calls on the Commission to assess how the measures taken by different Member States to contain the COVID-19 outbreak differed and consequently how the effects on children differed, with the aim of developing best practices to reduce the harm done to children in possible future pandemics;

238.   Welcomes the Commission's pledge to present an all-encompassing mental health strategy by the second quarter of 2023, in response to the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe;

239.   Highlights that some countries have recognised mental health as an area to prioritise and urges the Commission to develop a concrete action plan and mental health strategy, going beyond its ‘Healthier Together’ initiative and addressing the long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on public mental health;

240.   Stresses the need for a mental health strategy at EU level that would act as a support system for the Member States; calls on the governments of the Member States to prioritise mental health;

241.   Regrets that routine vaccination campaigns have faced setbacks and that the pandemic has revealed the vulnerability of immunisation systems worldwide, raising concerns about future outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases;

242.   Acknowledges the importance of continuing and improving national vaccination programmes; underlines that routine vaccination is a cost-effective public health measure;

243.   Recalls that, although the COVID-19 pandemic is now an established and ongoing health issue that no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, the EU and its Member States must remain vigilant in ensuring equal access to essential, life-saving vaccines at a global level; acknowledges that disinformation contributed to setbacks in vaccination and calls for a coordinated response from the EU institutions, the Member States, and online platforms on countering mis- and disinformation;

d)   One Health

244.   Highlights that emerging zoonotic infectious diseases are becoming increasingly common, and that 75 % of human infectious diseases are zoonotic; insists that COVID‑19 made it unmistakably clear that human, animal, plant and environmental health are inextricably interlinked and need to be addressed in a consistent and holistic manner, fully adhering to the One Health approach;

245.   Calls for the EU to integrate One Health, as defined by the WHO, in its public health policies; underlines that transformative changes are urgently needed across society; highlights the need to further expand knowledge in this field and promote public scientific research in order to better understand and reflect the interdependencies between human, animal, plant and environmental health using a multi-sectoral, transdisciplinary and integrated approach; is concerned by the threat of increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and highlights that AMR is one of the leading causes of death worldwide; recalls the importance of acting both at EU and national level to address this challenge with concrete measures, including legislative and regulatory measures and public health policies;

246.   Recalls that the underlying causes of pandemics include the same global environmental changes that lead to biodiversity loss and the climate change crisis and that the risk of pandemics can be significantly lowered by reducing human activities that drive biodiversity loss, pollution and global warming;

247.   Calls on the Commission and the ECDC to introduce surveillance plans on emerging health threats, including coordinated and systematic data collection, operational and behavioural research, and to carry out risk assessments on the drivers, processes and pathways for the emergence, spread and persistence of zoonotic diseases, as well as to characterise intact, resilient and healthy ecosystems and their effect on disease prevention, including wildlife surveillance and pathogen identification, and to support Member States on implementation;

248.   Calls on the Commission to conduct economic analyses to quantify the costs and benefits of preventive interventions to respond to the risk from emerging zoonotic diseases and use the results to advocate for sustainable financing in these interventions, and a comprehensive review of EU-level efforts by ECDC and HERA in regard to the ongoing H5N1 and mpox threats;

249.   Underlines that mainstreaming One Health means being better able to prevent, predict, prepare for, detect and respond to global health threats at global, EU and national levels and recommends that the One Health approach become a guiding principle in all public health policy initiatives and measures and in pandemic preparedness programmes, stresses the need for pandemic preparedness actions, including vector control for emerging zoonosis;

250.   Highlights that the cost of inaction vastly outweighs the cost of implementing global strategies to prevent pandemics;

251.   Calls for the establishment of a European cross-agency One Health task force to advance transdisciplinary research and cross-sectoral scientific advice;

252.   Urges the filling of current scientific knowledge gaps so as to reduce the risk of zoonotic diseases by coordinating research on the European level and facilitating collaboration among scientific fields;

253.   Stresses the importance of habitat protection and the reduction of human-wildlife interfaces to limit zoonotic disease spread; calls on the Commission to promote of One Health policies and legislation to address endemic zoonotic, neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases within the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty;

254.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to advocate in the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty for building collaborative predictive epidemic intelligence systems (at national, regional and global level) to identify high-risk interfaces and spillover hotspots, incorporating relevant environmental and climate data and data on the establishment of reservoirs and vector species in new geographical areas and setting up a harmonised EU-wide system to monitor public health parameters including monitoring urban waste water for possible health emergencies;

255.   Welcomes the One Health Joint Plan of action launched by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Environment Programme, the WHO and the World Organisation for Animal Health and underlines the important role of the Commission and Member States in coordinating and supporting the One Health and the ‘health in all policies’ approach; considers that the implementation of the One Health approach should encompass several essential steps, such as the mobilisation of research, and the creation of innovative transdisciplinary training for medical professionals and decision-makers;

256.   Recalls the importance of animal health, particularly in livestock and farm animals activities and that poor health conditions of livestock and gaps in sanitary controls can elevate the risk of zoonotic diseases; is deeply concerned about the increasingly frequent emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases, which is exacerbated by climate change, environmental degradation, land-use changes, deforestation, the destruction of and pressure on biodiversity and natural habitats, illegal trade in wild animals, and unsustainable food production and consumption patterns; highlights that improving animal health is a way to improve human health and calls for monitoring, surveillance and alert in animal farming and livestock to prevent zoonotic events;

e)   Conclusions and recommendations

i)   Health systems and services

257.   Encourages the EU and its Member States to implement the European Health Union package, so as to develop a permanent agenda for health and viewing public healthcare as an investment; calls for the strengthening of basic health services, especially primary care, available to all without discrimination, promoting health, education and literacy in order to improve the population’s general state of health; asks the Commission, in the context of the health union package, to present legislative and regulatory measures to identify minimum basic healthcare services and minimum standards for quality healthcare to be ensured for all across the EU;

258.   Calls for a dedicated investment package to promote the EU care sector and care economy as well as to ensure coordination among the different programmes and initiatives which can ensure the implementation of an effective care strategy;

259.   Stresses the need for further European and international cooperation to perform epidemiological surveillance through the implementation of the mandatory plans for surveillance, monitoring, alert and preparedness, with regard to public health threats, emerging public health trends, CDs and zoonotic events, and the interoperability of health data across Europe, including the ORs and OCTs as required by the regulation on cross-border health threats;

260.   Underlines to this end the importance of information sharing between Member States and EU authorities, the interoperability of information systems, new tools and research to strengthen interdisciplinary research and human and social sciences as regards the impact of pandemics and non-pharmaceutical measures;

261.   Calls for COVID-19 data collection and surveillance activities to be maintained in order to mitigate any potential future public health threat from the spread of the disease and for the urgent establishment of an EU-wide platform for genomic surveillance and sequencing, with appropriate alert systems in place, to be made available to clinicians and researchers;

262.   Calls for investment in building on existing health data analysis to find answers to questions such as the functioning of natural immunity, infection rates and the severity of predisposing factors;

263.   Calls for improved EU guidance on cases where healthcare services are temporarily suspended, scaled back or diverted, so as to enable identification of priority patients, in particular patients who need a physical examination and cannot benefit from telemedicine;

264.   Calls for improved capacity to ensure qualified personnel, equipment and sanitary materials, as well as medical infrastructure to respond to the specific treatment needs of these patients;

265.   Calls for the further digitalisation of administrative services in the health sector and, wherever appropriate and feasible, the use of online healthcare services, while taking appropriate measures to protect personal data and ensure the cyber resilience of national health systems and their infrastructures;

266.   Calls for the use of online healthcare services for health promotion, prevention and treatment, while ensuring the adequate level of digital skills for the workers, professionals and carers involved;

267.   Calls on the Member States to provide continuous training and professional development for healthcare workers, in line with existing EU legislation, including training on pandemic surveillance and crisis management, with a focus on healthcare workers’ well-being and safety, and to ensure recognition of their skills and improvement of their working conditions, including adequate remuneration;

268.   Acknowledges that the lack of funding and public investment has impacted the work, physical health and mental health of healthcare workers; emphasises the importance of preventive and protective measures for the workers physical and mental health, as well as other protective measures when necessary, including vaccinations; urges Member States to address underpaid healthcare professions, such as nurses and carers, and the gender pay gap in healthcare professions, and to rapidly propose measures in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, taking into account the measures proposed by Parliament in its resolution of 5 July 2022 towards a common European action on care [46] ;

269.   Calls on the Commission to propose a directive on psychosocial risks at work to tackle those risks and improve health and care professionals’ working conditions; therefore requests that Member States establish a long-term, medium-term and short-term policy agenda to address the shortage of healthcare workers;

270.   Believes that mental health must be made a priority in the EU health union package and believes the link between mental and physical health should be recognised and reflected in the package; urges the Commission and the Member States to address the mental health crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among young people and children and calls for a comprehensive EU mental health strategy that focuses on youth mental health and integrates actions for all social groups, particularly the most vulnerable; urges the Commission and the Member States to include mental health impacts in their work on health crisis and pandemic emergency response and preparedness;

271.   Stresses the significance of integrating mental healthcare with physical care, culture and arts and other leisure activities providing effective, evidence-based, and human rights-focused care, and broadening the scope of available services to enable greater access to treatment; urges increased investment in community-based mental health support and services, as well as enhanced access to mental healthcare within national health systems; acknowledges the impact of arts on health and well-being, encompassing mental health, and the role of arts in pandemic responses throughout the EU;

272.   Emphasises the importance of Member States to properly finance their health systems, in order to ensure their immediate and long-term resilience by investing in the healthcare workforce, clinical trials, health education public and critical health infrastructure, tools, structures, processes and laboratory capacity, and calls for the provision of high-quality, accessible and affordable care services;

273.   Urges the Commission to implement an emergency plan to strengthen pharmacovigilance at the Member State and European levels so as to support rapid local data collection and processing capabilities, additional recruitment within national teams, improved processing of spontaneous notifications and the implementation of active pharmacovigilance;

ii)   Contracts and negotiations

274.   Emphasises the need for better preparedness in joint procurement procedures for medicines and medical products, while avoiding surpluses, in view of the inherent unpredictability of pandemics; Highlights the need to ensure transparency even in crisis situations when time is short, in order to guarantee democratic oversight and enhance citizens’ trust in public institutions, including EU institutions;

275.   Recognises the importance of Parliament’s scrutiny role and calls for special attention to transparency in the negotiation of joint procurement contracts; suggests learning from joint procurement initiatives to prevent delivery delays, unjustifiably high prices and surplus vaccines and medical countermeasures and to ensure product liability remains fully with the manufacturers; urges the establishment of clear rules for negotiations with companies to avoid surplus vaccines and medical countermeasures and stresses the importance of future vaccine procurement contracts avoiding monopolies and/or oligopolies, ensuring a diverse portfolio of vaccines so as to offer greater protection to European citizens;

276.   Urges that common and joint procurement procedures in emergency situations be improved and a more coordinated approach taken, allowing for contracts to be adapted;

277.   Insists on principles of fair pricing, transparency and a fair return on public investment for advance purchases, and that contracts should be adapted to changing threats and public needs; demands a clear list of criteria for joint procurement;

278.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that existing rules, as provided for in EU legislation, are respected to ensure quality products, and that, the transfer of liability from manufacturers to Member States does not become standard practice;

279.   Underlines the importance of the fact that the Joint Procurement Agreement provided for an exclusivity clause in the framework of the COVID-19 vaccine purchase thus protecting the negotiation position and safeguarding the EU’s security of supply and calls on the Commission to ensure that manufacturers benefiting from EU funding report regularly on how these funds are spent;

iii)   Availability of medical countermeasures

280.   Recommends that the EU establish adequate systems to provide manufacturers with proper at-risk funding in the event of a public health crisis, to support development and production of the relevant medical countermeasures, to help manufacturers to quickly adapt and scale up production, avoiding disruptions and shortages of medicines, medical devices, health technology and services, for instance through reservation fees in joint procurement contracts, which can be particularly helpful for SMEs, and that such mechanisms should be transparent and contingent to approval and revision by legislative bodies;

281.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish a clear sustainable stockpiling strategy, with the aim of developing complementary EU and national medical stockpiles for pandemic preparedness and response, while avoiding waste;

282.   Calls on the Commission to ensure that the revision of the general pharmaceutical legislation builds on a good understanding of the root causes of medicine shortages; highlights the need for the EU’s pharmaceutical industry to have a diversified supply chain and a medicine-shortage risk-mitigation plan to cope with any vulnerabilities and risks to the supply chain, which should preferably be located within the European Economic Area, and to require pharmaceutical companies to have adequate levels of safety stocks and provide early notice of medicine shortages, backed up with supply chain transparency requirements and risk-prevention measures; reaffirms the need to enhance the security of supply through earlier notification of shortages, stricter obligations for supply and transparency, enhanced transparency of stocks and improved EU coordination and mechanisms to manage and avoid shortages;

283.   Supports strengthening existing production capacities in the Member States, while also encouraging reshoring the pharmaceutical industry when needed to address high dependencies; emphasises the need for a risk-mitigation plan for medicines defined as critical;

284.   Believes the Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) on health should facilitate the development of innovative and greener technologies and production processes for drug manufacture, gene and cell therapies and innovation in strategic treatments;

285.   Calls on the Commission and Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in addition to COVID-19 vaccines, effective COVID-19 therapeutics for every stage of disease progression are accessible, to allow faster recovery and reduce mortality;

IV)   SUPPLY CHAINS

286.   Proposes that stronger provisions related to supply disruptions should be promoted in future contracts concerning the supply of medical products; calls for the detection of high-risk dependencies and the establishment of production capacities for related products in the EU and for the development of production capacities in Europe for active ingredients, excipients and essential ancillary products;

287.   Believes that the EU should reduce its dependence on trade partners and act decisively to prevent drug shortages; calls on EMA to map out supply chain vulnerabilities related to the European system of sourcing medical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients from outside Europe;

288.   Believes that the EU should ensure better sharing of data from the industry, earlier projections on where shortages may occur in the future and greater transparency in the production and distribution of medicinal products where this would help ensure the availability and accessibility of medicines of priority public interest;

289.   Stresses that the pandemic has highlighted the need to increase the EU’s strategic autonomy in essential supply chains and critical infrastructures and services and believes that the EU should increase the share of key medical production in its territory to strengthen Europe’s supply chain autonomy, while retaining openness to global supply chain dynamics during both normal and emergency health situations;

290.   Invites the Commission to also consider funding strategic projects in the health sector through a European Sovereignty Fund that could contribute to achieve EU’s strategic autonomy on medical products;

291.   Believes that stimulating and building on an attractive European industrial ecosystem for the pharmaceutical sector is one of the key conditions for continuing to foster the relocation of production facilities back to the EU and that relocations of this kind can help to make EU healthcare systems more independent from third countries and more resilient to disruptions; calls on the Commission to promote dialogue with the Member States and all relevant stakeholders to promote ‘made in Europe’ pharmaceuticals by strengthening manufacturing and supply resilience, assessing additional criteria for national pricing at no additional cost to patients and without prejudice to the sustainability of the health system, and ensuring that these criteria include high environmental manufacturing standards, robust supply chain management, demonstrable investment in innovation and research; emphasises the importance of early planning to avoid shortages and allocate supply where patient demand is; underlines that any form of support from public authorities should be conditional upon accessibility, affordability, availability, safety and transparency clauses;

292.   Recalls that any public funding must be conditional on transparency and traceability of investments, supply obligations on the European market and the accessibility, safety and affordability of the produced medicines;

293   Emphasises the importance of reducing administrative delays between the submission of a marketing authorisation application and its approval by the EMA, and that the simplification of regulatory procedures should not compromise safety, efficacy and quality standards;

294.   Suggests developing networks that can be mobilised to produce a variety of technologies at short notice (such as the EU FAB) and address supply chain challenges and trade barriers that impact the production process, reiterates the need to facilitate non-profit production of medicines;

v)   Research and development

295.   Encourages further investment in R&D oriented to address objectives of public interest, by increasing the resources of the EU framework programme for research and innovation and the EU4Health programme and establishing HERA as a future EU agency supporting research to make vaccines as well as innovative and other treatments available in times of crisis and beyond; encourages vaccine research to methodically explore and take into account gender differences in vaccine response and efficacy by increasing women’s representation in clinical trials;

296.   Stresses the importance of investing in more affordable and accessible end products; reaffirms the need for greater transparency in biomedical R&D to independently establish well-targeted financial investments and reduce duplication by ensuring clinical trial data and outcomes are reported and accessible;

297.   Calls on the Commission to make post-acute infection syndromes (PAIS) a priority and to develop an EU PAIS strategy, comparable to Europe’s beating cancer plan and the EU strategy on mental health and address PAIS in the global health strategy; calls for the EU and its Member States to take as much effort to find a cure for PAIS patients as they took for vaccine development;

298.   Calls for more research to determine the underlying causes, frequency and best treatment options for PASC, including long COVID, post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, Post Vac and other post-infectious diseases and research into their long-term consequences such as developing ME/CFS, as well as for the exchange of experience and approaches to addressing the impact of their effects; requests the establishment of an EU network of experts on these diseases with a coordinated programme of surveillance systems, including data disaggregated by different subgroups from each Member State, including in the ORs and OCTs, using consistent case definitions and methodologies and encompassing the impact of these conditions on health, employment and the economy; emphasises the need for additional funding and prioritised calls for projects focused on biomedical research into PASC and for better recognition of PASC at Member State level;

299.   Calls on the Commission to use Horizon Europe funding for dedicated and targeted PASC research, including cooperation with pharmaceutical industry, on a scale allowing the development of a series of diagnostic tools, financing pivotal studies and developing drugs that address the different symptom clusters and the European Partnership on Rare Diseases; highlights in this regard that even viruses that do not seem very serious can sometimes lead to severe diseases years down the line; underlines that prevention is better than cure and therefore reiterates the need to encourage and fund research to create vaccines that provide sterile immunity, which would not just treat the disease but would most importantly prevent infections, avoiding any potential long-term problems ;

300.   Reminds the Member States of the importance of providing adequate assistance and support to people suffering from PASC, including long COVID in extending sickness allowances, facilitating access to social benefit schemes as well as compensation for Post Vac patients in order to mitigate PASC as a poverty trap, including appropriate support for those affected in their daily life or work capacity; acknowledges the need for improved medical education and training for health and social care professionals working with PASC and the inclusion of ME/CFS within the European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases (ERN);

vi)   Transparency

301.   Calls on the Commission to periodically evaluate and review the incentive system, and report back to the European Parliament, increase price transparency while respecting business confidentiality and highlights the factors of health technologies and the economic sustainability of public health systems;

302.   Recalls that all Europeans have the right to optimal treatment, regardless of financial means, gender, age, or nationality and expresses concern over the great disparity in availability and access to different therapies, with unaffordability being a primary reason;

303.   Calls on the Member States to take into account the gender health gap in their future pandemic preparedness and resilience;

304.   Underlines especially the need to ensure access to women’s sexual and reproductive health services and reminds the Member States that equal access to healthcare, is an essential component of their legal obligations to advance gender equality;

305.   Insists on the need to ensure equal access to safe, effective, and affordable medicines within the EU and encourages the Member States to consider joint price negotiation with pharmaceutical companies;

306.   Urges the Commission to submit a proposal for the revision of Council Directive 89/105/EEC on the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products [47] in order to ensure effective scrutiny and full transparency of the procedures used to determine the price of and reimbursement amount for medicines, particularly cancer medicines, in all Member States;

307.   Regrets the lack of transparency during certain negotiating phases of vaccine contracts by the Commission and underlines that transparency in the decision-making process strengthens the acceptance of political choices made on behalf of citizens;

308.   Encourages responsible ways to enhance transparency regarding public vaccine funding, contracts, and procurement, as well as medical countermeasures, the real costs of R&D, and access to clinical trial results and related data through the clinical trial information system;

309.   Calls on the Commission to ensure its duty of transparency by also making public, in procurement contracts, information related to the liability of manufacturers, delivery dates and volumes of doses for each Member States, and furthermore the price of the doses sold;

310.   Calls on the Commission to continue to keep the European Parliament informed and updated concerning purchase agreements and to provide the European Parliament access to the non-redacted versions of all purchase agreements without any further delay;

311.   Calls on the Commission to publish the non-redacted version of the purchase agreements for the general public after their respective termination dates, including all information of public interest, when legally possible;

312.   Urges the Commission, Member States, and manufacturers to be transparent about potential side effects of vaccines, including known side effects identified by the EMA, and to communicate in this context, as well as concerning the benefits and efficiency of vaccinations, in a consistent, comprehensive, and coordinated way, guaranteeing the safety of patients, as well as to avoid vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, and disinformation;

313.   Encourages the Member States to pursue efforts to collect data about side effects in a timely and adequate manner, and feed these data into the pharmacovigilance database; stresses the importance of pharmacovigilance, mitigation measures to prevent adverse reactions, determine liability and ensure swift compensation in the event of injury by manufacturers;

vii)   EU institutions

314.   Calls for HERA to be made an autonomous, EU agency, with a strong and well-defined mandate from the Council and Parliament (including a proper industrial research role, and mandate), which would also ensure parliamentary oversight and hence increase transparency, with increased resources and a budget to fulfil its mandate, while being coordinated with other EU health initiatives, focusing its activities on safeguarding the public interest, including through access conditions and legal options to mandate technology transfer and knowledge sharing;

2.   A coordinated approach with respect for democracy and fundamental rights

a. Building trust

i)   Better and more effective EU health communication, in particular with regard to epidemics or health crises

315.   Underlines that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular the rights of certain groups, such as the elderly, children, women and young people, and had an especially adverse effect on already marginalised groups, including but not limited to disabled people, migrants, people facing racism, socially disadvantaged people and LGTBQIA+ persons; stresses that trust in public authorities and institutions and in science applied in public institutions’ decision-making is indispensable for an effective response to pandemics and is unattainable without transparency and communication based on scientific evidence in line with the data available at the time, delivered in a transparent and understandable way for the general public; recognises that the spread of scientifically or medically false information in the midst of a health crisis has seriously harmed the health of the EU population and even put the lives of people living in EU at risk; deplores politically motivated use of fake news and disinformation, and the attempts to destabilise through such means the public institutions in a time of crisis; notes that the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on democratic oversight and transparency of public institutions; underlines that these developments have a negative impact not only on citizens’ trust in public institutions but also on social cohesion; underlines that trustfulness and consistent disclosure of public documents together with communication of science-based decisions in a clear, effective and understandable way for the general public increase people’s willingness to follow voluntarily health recommendations and increase public trust in general;

316.   Stresses the need for decisions on the measures applied for tackling pandemics, especially when they entail a restriction of freedoms, to be based on scientific criteria and the advice of scientific authorities in the field through formal, transparent decision-making processes;

317.   Notes the efforts of the EMA to provide clear, transparent, accurate and timely information on the authorisation and supervision of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, with unprecedented speed and frequency and recognises that the agency has already implemented measures to increase the transparency of its regulatory activities on COVID‑19 vaccines and treatments; acknowledges the need for the agency to continue to further improve transparency, communication and the availability of information and therefore asks the agency to ensure full transparency and availability of information on vaccines and their authorisation processes, with a view to fostering public trust and to provide complete information about public funds and their spending; recognises that the agency’s communication was key to reassure citizens, fight mis- and disinformation during the pandemic and highlights the importance of ensuring high levels of transparency in the agency’s functioning; acknowledges the need for the ECDC, the Commission and the Member States to improve their transparency and communication strategies in times of crisis;

318.   Points out differences between Member States’ ability to tackle disinformation; notes that such differences are one factor contributing to disparities in terms of vaccine hesitancy;

319.   Recognises that, despite the disinformation spread within   the Union, EU citizens and society in general highly welcomed the vaccines against COVID-19 and highlights that the great sense of responsibility of citizens was essential for the smooth running and success of the vaccination campaign in many Member States;

320.   Considers that a health education, among other policies, including communication and proximity to healthcare providers and other relevant stakeholders, together with the communication of scientific evidence and results in an understandable way, media literacy and transparency of public procedures, community-based solutions and outreach to marginalised communities are some of the key factors in reducing vaccine hesitancy;

ii) tackling misinformation and disinformation and the role of social media

321.   Highlights that disinformation is an evolving challenge with the potential to negatively influence democratic processes and societal debates affecting all policy areas, to undermine citizens’ trust in democracy and to discourage European cooperation and solidarity;

322.   Acknowledges that the European information space needs to be better protected; notes the rapid growth of mis- and disinformation on social media and traditional media outlets during the pandemic and strongly recommends developing strategies to prevent misinformation during times of crises;

323.   Recalls that the best way to fight disinformation is to protect and ensure the right to information and freedom of expression, supporting media pluralism and independent journalism; calls on the Member States, in this context, to ensure transparency when adopting measures in a crisis situation and to provide their citizens with comprehensive, up-to-date, precise and objective information and data concerning the situation and measures undertaken to control it, in order to fight disinformation that aims to discredit or distort scientific knowledge about health risks;

324.   Stresses the need for information to be comprehensible, consistent, scientifically substantiated and provided in a timely way to avoid misinformation and thus provide guidance to the public, the media and healthcare providers and ensure compliance with public health recommendations;

325.   Welcomes the revision of the ‘Code of Practice on Disinformation’ in 2022 and strongly supports its new commitments and recommends an early report on its impact;

326.   Welcomes the proposed European media freedom act, which is designed to preserve media freedom and diversity in the face of anti-misinformation tools; welcomes the fact-checking work of journalists to counter misinformation and disinformation, duly respecting fundamental rights and the principle of freedom of the press; calls for more resources to facilitate training on anti-misinformation tools and advocates for a stronger collaboration between the media to avoid the spread of fake news; calls upon the Commission and the Member States to intensify efforts in times of crisis to ensure that journalists can work safely, and to recognise news media as an essential service;

327.   Welcomes the establishment of a permanent task force on misinformation (the European External action Service StratCom division) to monitor the scale of misinformation in the EU and welcomes the proposed European democracy action plan to establish a common European strategy to tackle misinformation as well as the upcoming Defence of Democracy package;328.  Highlights that disinformation campaigns, along with cyberattacks, can also be part of ‘hybrid warfare’ strategies by foreign powers and should be addressed as part of a broader security strategy;

329.   Welcomes the use of the pre-existing Rapid Alert System during the COVID-19 crisis, which was specifically designed to counter foreign disinformation campaigns; notes the upcoming toolbox jointly established by the Commission and the European External Action Service, which lays out resilience-building, regulatory and response action solutions; calls upon the Member States to make more extensive use of the Rapid Alert System and other appropriate means in order to strengthen cooperation with EU institutions and among themselves, including for sharing information available on the health indications of the situation on the ground and on its progress; emphasises that outreach and communication have played an essential role in the fight against the pandemic;

330.   Welcomes the setting up of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) which will support an independent multidisciplinary community on COVID-19 disinformation with a technological infrastructure with tools and services; recommends that EDMO assist public authorities with research within its competences   and establishes appropriate links to the Rapid Alert System;

331.   Recalls the role of the media, especially of social media in providing a platform in the spread of mis- and disinformation relating to COVID-19 and health questions in general; underlines that many social media companies’ business model is based on click-baiting and therefore aggravating fake news and hate speech;

332.   Acknowledges the limited cooperation of social media platforms, owing to a lack of clarity in their reports and regrets the differences between the Member States’ vaccination strategies, advice and communications, sometimes resulting in conflicting messages to specific target groups, which can potentially result in vaccine hesitancy;

333.   Recalls that the business model of online platforms is still data driven, and that the ability of online platforms to collect large amounts of personal data is dependent on social media platforms’ use of algorithms; considers that algorithms play a role in the amplification of false narratives;

334.   Stresses the importance of monitoring social media platforms to understand ongoing and emerging trends in disinformation and fake news; asks the Commission and Member States to require greater and stronger cooperation from those platforms, in order to ensure the public debate is built on trust, transparency and correct information;

335.   Welcomes the adoption of the Digital Services Act [48] (DSA) and Digital Markets Act [49] in 2022, which aim to create a safer digital space in which the fundamental rights of all users of digital services are protected; recognises the need for more transparency from social media companies about what content they share on their platforms, what politically sensitive advertisements have been published and what data they store for future use; welcomes the DSA’s provisions that require very large online platforms and very large online search engines to provide information on algorithms, to allow access to them, to explain how they work, to assess their impact on democratic and electoral processes, and to take risk-mitigation measures;336.  Recommends supporting targeted action on inclusiveness in post-pandemic recovery to protect democratic space and make it representative of all voices in society; underlines that digital and media literacy and increased support of critical thinking for social media users, are paramount in the fight against disinformation and misinformation;

337.   Reaffirms the importance of Parliament’s having a Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, including Disinformation (INGE), including disinformation and the strengthening of integrity, transparency and accountability in the European Parliament;

iii)   Importance of community engagement, including listening to and addressing public concerns

338.   Recommends further including representatives of local, regional and territorial authorities and communities, including elected officials, representatives of civil society organisations and social partners, in the interinstitutional, multilevel process of generating trust, coordinating the delivering of factually correct information to all members of society in a clear and understandable manner and fostering the population’s active engagement in times of crisis; recommends taking a principled people-centred approach in the development of health emergency response agendas and policies; recommends that the Commission take fully into account the results of the public consultations in its legislative proposals linked to pandemic management; recalls in this context the important role played by the scientific community, patient organisations, non-profit organisations and non-governmental organisations in building and enhancing public trust and advises better engagement with them;

339.   Acknowledges the key role played by local authorities, especially regions and municipalities, during the pandemic, since they were on the front line providing healthcare and ensuring that the pandemic countermeasures were properly implemented;

b)   COVID-19 and fundamental rights

340.   Reiterates the importance of well-established national and European Union level scrutiny processes and democratic oversight based on the division of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary to ensure that national authorities are held accountable for breaches of freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, the right to private property and patient rights, and to ensure certainty and predictability in changes to rules for businesses; underlines that any restriction of fundamental rights needs to be limited in time and be proportionate to the temporary prevailing need of protecting the population; recommends that emergency measures should only be in force as long as they are necessary; stresses in this regard the importance of applying sunset clauses to emergency measures in line with the national law; notes that national authorities generally adopted   emergency measures during the pandemic in order to protect public health; regrets the impact on human rights, especially of the most vulnerable and marginalised people;

341.   Notes with concern that in some cases Member States that introduced a state of emergency or equivalent regime used this emergency tool to restrict the right to the freedom of assembly of political opponents, and used this emergency tool as an opportunity to pass controversial legislation or development plans;

I)   COVID-19 certificate, tracing apps and their security

342.   Welcomes the overall success of the EU COVID Digital Certificate and recalls its fundamental importance in protecting public health; recalls that the certificate was fundamental in order to guarantee freedom of movement and the integrity of the single market as soon as the public health situation allowed for the loosening of restrictions and limitations; underlines its relevance in serving as a model for the EU to successfully deploy EU-wide digital health solutions of this nature if needed in the future; notes that the EU Digital COVID Certificate in combination with the successful establishment of a coordinated EU external border approach have been crucial in restoring the free movement of persons;

343.   Notes that the EU has a strong legal data protection framework to protect natural persons when processing their personal data; highlights that the EU COVID Digital Certificate and tracing apps based on the Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing (DP-3T) protocol respected this legislative framework, while allowing the free movement of EU citizens under the sanitary rules applied during the crisis; underlines that both systems were developed by European privacy engineers and have been used all over the world; recalls that the EU COVID Digital Certificate has enabled coordination between the Member States by putting in place harmonised rules at EU level, avoiding divergent systems between Member States and disorganisation;

344.   Regrets that diverging approaches among the Member States and the adoption of national measures on the use of the EU Digital COVID Certificate that went beyond the objective of restoring the free movement of persons and mobility undermined public trust in the tool; recognises that several contact-tracing methods and tools introduced and used on national level were insecure, ineffective, or privacy-invasive; calls on Member States to learn from such mistakes;

II)   Impact on vulnerable and marginalised groups’ rights

345.   Considers that the digital divide is an element of concern for the EU’s preparedness and resilience, given that vulnerable and marginalised population groups are particularly impacted because they tend to have fewer connection opportunities; underlines that in times of crisis marginalised people and communities, minorities and disadvantaged people are much more affected than the general population; recognises that limitations in the fundamental freedoms, justified on public health grounds, have disproportionately affected those population groups, further exacerbating their isolation and their detachment from broader society;

346.   Acknowledges that the lack of clear legal frameworks and sufficient resources resulted in indirect discrimination, including during triage, leading to unequal treatment or particular negative impacts on certain groups, especially persons with disabilities; highlights that in order to successfully meet the needs of the poorest and most marginalised people during a pandemic, the health response in emergencies must be based on the principles of equity and inclusion;

347.   Calls for stronger involvement of civil society organisations, special interest groups and ethics committees in the design, implementation and monitoring of health measures, to safeguard fundamental the rights of vulnerable and marginalised people in emergencies;

348.   Calls on the Member States to assess how health emergency measures have disproportionately affected minority and/or marginalised communities;

349.   Acknowledges that previous research on pandemics shows that the prevalence and severity of gender-based violence is exacerbated during crises; highlights that during the lockdowns resulting from the pandemic, gender-based violence against women and children increased significantly as the restrictive measures fostered a particularly enabling environment for abusers;

350.   Notes that the WHO’s European countries reported a 60 % increase in emergency calls from women subjected to violence by their intimate partner and   highlights in this context the especially difficult situation of women facing intersectional discrimination; notes that limited access to support services, like women’s shelters and hotlines in many cases left women with no place to go and seek help; notes, moreover that digitalisation drove an observable rise in online gender-based violence as abusive individuals could track down their victims or the most vulnerable people using digital tools;

351.   Stresses that the greater vulnerability of the elderly population was compounded by their fragility and poorer prognosis, on account of their greater average age and frequent comorbidities, resulting in clinical complexity and a non-uniform approach to care for the elderly;

c)   Democratic oversight to pandemic response

352.   Regrets that Parliament had a very limited role during the pandemic, as decisions were left mostly to the executive branch; recalls that the European Parliament and national parliaments need to exercise their core constitutional functions of legislation, oversight of the executive and representation of citizens regardless of the urgency;

i)   Democratic oversight to pandemic response at national level

353.   Notes significant differences in the degree of parliamentary oversight of COVID‑19‑related emergency measures between Member States, although oversight functions conducted by national parliaments remain an essential requirement of parliamentary democracy, especially at times when states of emergency are introduced, such that more power shifts towards the executive, and that efficient parliamentary oversight requires a legal framework guaranteeing the rights of opposition and minority MPs; underlines that the legislative framework should guarantee the introduction of a sunset clause and an evaluation clause in the state-of-emergency decree, the respect for budgetary scrutiny by parliaments in association, if possible, with independent audits and the involvement of parliaments in the creation of scientific committees;

354.   Recognises that state-of-emergency measures should remain of a temporary nature and governments should avoid prolonging their effect beyond the duration of the crisis; underlines that, even in such emergency situations the rule of law must always be guaranteed;

355.   Stresses that parliamentary oversight was restricted during the pandemic, notes that national authorities adopted stringent emergency measures during the pandemic in order to protect public health;

356.   Recognises that checks and balances and the separation of powers in the EU Member States were not always guaranteed nor always prevailed under the emergency laws;

357.   Notes that Member States have established bodies, authorities and procedures to provide scientific advice on the formulation of public policies and the adoption of measures, including in crisis situations; proposes that in future crises, such as pandemics, the names of the members and professionals of these expert groups should be forwarded to national parliaments for their scrutiny and knowledge in line with national law and practices;

358.   Acknowledges that courts played an important role in scrutinising emergency legislation under the constitutions of the relevant Member States; notes with concern the complete shutdown of courts in certain Member States, which effectively prevented access to any means of challenging restrictive measures introduced to respond to the pandemic or for other matters, especially those to protect the exercise of non-derogable and absolute rights provided by Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); underlines that the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law needs to be guaranteed during pandemics;

359.   Considers that in the aftermath of the pandemic as well as Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, safeguarding transparency and accountability as key principles embedded in European democratic values is critical and necessitates designing systematic plans rather than ad hoc measures;

360.   Regrets that the crisis has exacerbated pre-existing challenges to democracy, fundamental rights, checks and balances, and the rule of law in some Member States; regrets that some of the instruments used by Member States to adopt extraordinary measures were deemed unconstitutional; is concerned about the spread of conspiracy theories, political extremism and hate speech during the pandemic in most Member States and considers this a threat to European democracies and European values; stresses that this development needs to be taken seriously by public authorities and addressed horizontally;

ii)   Democratic oversight to pandemic response at EU level

361.   Is concerned that during the pandemic, the executive branch had the upper hand in emergency decision-making, which undermined Parliament’s prerogatives and ability to conduct political oversight; is of the opinion that it is necessary to re-evaluate the measures in place in order to safeguard Parliament’s prerogatives; calls on the Commission and the Council to limit the use of Article 122 TFEU and to increase parliamentary control, including the European Parliament's legislative initiative in emergency response actions, and codecision for various instruments to bolster the legitimacy of emergency response actions;

362.   Notes that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Parliament adopted extraordinary measures and undertook innovative action that allowed it to continue its activities, perform its duties and exercise its legislative, budgetary, scrutiny and oversight prerogatives under the Treaties, while protecting the health of Members, staff and other persons during the course of the pandemic; highlights Parliament’s ability to continue its interpretation services in the 24 official EU languages, even during remote meetings;

363.   Calls for more coordination among EU institutions on adopting extraordinary measures and stresses the need to address digitalisation challenges to ensure that EU institutions, in particular Parliament, can fulfil their mandates and responsibilities by means of in-person meetings, such as plenary sittings and interinstitutional negotiations (trilogues); recognises, however, the value of digital and remote solutions when emergency situations require them, particularly for public health reasons;

364.   Emphasises that the pandemic and the subsequent changes in the institutions’ working procedures resulted in a slowdown in the processing of requests for access to documents; stresses that it is essential for the institutions to put in place mechanisms to ensure that the highest level of transparency and access to documents is maintained, even in the event of a crisis;

d.   COVID-19 and Member States’ restrictions on free movement of persons

365.   Highlights that, in response to COVID-19 infections, several Schengen states reintroduced internal border controls or closed their borders, without epidemiological criteria, or imposed restrictions on certain categories of travellers, including EU citizens and their family members and non-EU nationals residing on their territory or that of another Member State, undermining the principle of the freedom of movement and the essence of the Schengen cooperation; is concerned that these travel restrictions and measures challenged the integrity of the Schengen area, undermined the functioning of the internal market and had a negative impact on the economy;

366.   Stresses that the uncoordinated approach of Member States and the legal uncertainty surrounding the travel restrictions imposed by Member States had significant consequences for both travellers and the tourism industry;

367.   Notes that Member States did not always notify the Commission of new border controls, or submit the compulsory ex post reports assessing, among other points, the effectiveness and proportionality of their controls at internal borders, and when these reports were submitted, they often failed to provide sufficient information on these issues; recognises that this affected the Commission’s ability to carry out a robust analysis of the extent to which the border control measures complied with the Schengen legislation; reiterates that any internal border controls should be proportionate and a measure of last resort and of limited duration and underlines that the Commission should exercise proper scrutiny to ensure that internal border controls comply with the Schengen legislation and to streamline data collection about travel restrictions and provide more actionable guidance on the implementation of internal border controls;

368.   Highlights that, in 2020, the Commission published guidelines for border management measures to protect health and ensure the availability of goods and essential services, in order for Member States to guarantee the continued functioning of supply chains in the single market and avoid possible shortages, together with guidelines concerning the exercise of the free movement of workers during COVID-19 outbreak to allow workers in critical occupations, in particular, to perform activities related to essential services; welcomes the action taken to install ‘green lanes’ to safeguard the working of the single market and the free movement of goods, but calls for tailored action plans to be prepared to safeguard the free movement of cross-border workers and people in future crises; recalls that there were problems with the operation of the green lanes on some routes owing to a lack of minimum services and supplies, which negatively affected drivers and transport workers;

369.   Takes note of the Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) [50] addressing, inter alia the capacity of the Schengen Member States to respond in a uniform manner to major public health threats; highlights the need to follow a coordinated approach among the Member States in cases of health crises, to ensure that the reintroduction of internal border controls by the Member States is used as an absolute last resort and in compliance with the principle of proportionality and to guarantee respect of the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement during health crises;

e.   Conclusions

370.   Acknowledges that, amid the crisis, European and national institutions were confronted with exceptional situations in which certain matters had to be dealt with urgently; stresses, however, that transparency and accountability should remain priorities during crises, in particular, in order to build and maintain citizens’ trust in the functioning of public institutions; stresses the need for preparedness plans at EU and national level and that these must be based on respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law, to avoid breaches in times of crisis;

371.   Calls on the Commission to ensure that the highest standards are adhered to in the safeguarding of the public interest; urges the Commission, when determining redactions of official documents, to list the specific exception   under Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 being applied for each individual redaction, rather than for the document as a whole;

372.   Recommends that Member States include media and digital literacy, civic education, respect for fundamental rights, critical thinking and promotion of public participation on school and university curricula, in parallel with efforts to raise awareness among adults;

373.   Stresses the importance of and the need for an improved dialogue among healthcare professionals, the public authorities concerned, research groups and the pharmaceutical industry during pandemics, regarding communication on disease and guidelines for future pandemics and health crises;

374.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to further develop a strategy to counter the negative effects of ‘infodemics’ in future crises;

375.   Recommends that European Institutions and Member States draw up guidelines on how to tackle the ethical questions that can rise during a health or other crisis; believes that these guidelines should especially focus on how to protect the most vulnerable groups and how to ensure that their rights are also safeguarded in a crisis situation; underlines the importance of involving relevant stakeholders in the development of these guidelines, including but not limited to disability organisations, LGTBQIA+ organisations, women’s rights organisations, organisations representing persons who are racially discriminated against, including organisations representing migrants;

376.   Calls on the Member States to end discriminatory triage practices, particularly those that use age, pre-existing medical conditions and quality of life as unique criterion, and to improve access to healthcare for disabled persons through guidance and training; recommends that, in situations where healthcare professionals will not be able to provide the same level of care to everyone medical guidelines need to be non-discriminatory and follow international law and existing ethics guidelines for care in the event of disasters and emergencies; reiterates that in producing these guidelines the authorities must take into account their commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, especially Article 11 – situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies; underlines especially the necessity to support persons with disabilities facing intersectional discrimination;

377.   Calls on the Member States to address rising levels of domestic violence during restrictive measures, by awareness-raising, provision of information in a safe environment, opening shelters for victims, by developing virtual or digital solutions , continuing to issue protection orders and handle domestic violence court cases during lockdowns;

378.   Urges the Commission to come up with guidelines for health emergency situations concerning the fundamental rights of children, youth and families, including guidelines on facilitating access to outdoor spaces in view of the epidemiological situation;

379.   Asks the Commission and the Member States to propose concrete measures to support and protect marginalised people and communities, minorities and disadvantaged people during crises, both on the socioeconomic level and in terms of social and cultural inclusion;

380.   Underlines the difficulties LGTBQIA+ persons faced in accessing medical care during the pandemic, in particular trans people, and urges the Commission and Member States to develop mechanisms to counter this in any potential future health or other crisis; reminds the Commission and the Member States of the specific protection rainbow families might need in an emergency or crisis situation, especially in Member States where their legal status is unclear;

381.   Recalls the need for enhanced solidarity among Member States, especially in times of crisis; regrets the blocking of essential goods, medicines, medical devices and equipment during the most delicate phases of the crisis; asks the Commission to promote more solidarity in the future and propose appropriate measures to sanction Member States responsible for unilateral initiatives of this kind;

382.   Reminds the Member States that the option to temporarily reintroduce border controls at the internal borders must be applied as an absolute last resort measure in exceptional situations such a serious threat to public policy or internal security and must respect the principle of proportionality;

383.   Calls on the Member States to consider carrying out an ex post review of how national legal regimes were prepared for the measures required by the pandemic with a view to maximising their preparedness and legal framework for future crises;

384.   Emphasises that Member States also need to ensure democratic oversight during crises and emergency situations; underlines the importance of checks and balances and the need to ensure the transparency of public decision-making as well as involving and informing citizens in an approachable, understandable way; recalls that all these factors are crucial to building trust in public institutions and authorities and that trust is one of the cornerstones of resilient democratic societies;

385.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to come up with proper legislative solutions such as, for example, a European framework with minimum criteria, to guarantee the dignity and proper treatment of institutionalised persons during pandemics;

386.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to establish mechanisms that should be available during crisis situations to prevent and combat all types of gender-based violence including   trafficking, prostitution, sexual exploitation and rape; recommends developing an EU protocol for the protection of victims of gender-based violence in times of crisis and emergencies and to categorise it as an ‘essential service’ in the Member States;

3.   Social and Economic Impact

a)   The effects of COVID-19 measures, including lockdowns, on workers, businesses and consumers

387.   Notes that the shock of the pandemic to labour markets in 2020 was sharp, and that the recovery has been generally swift but unequal between Member States; notes that the recovery has been aided by policy interventions and significant public support at national and EU level; points out that the Member States dealt with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic using different measures, and the impact of the pandemic on the functioning of businesses and the labour market has therefore been different; underlines that while overall, EU employment recovered to pre-crisis levels within two years, compared to nearly eight years following the global financial crisis, the response by the EU and Member States has not yet been generally sufficient to return to pre-pandemic levels, while the subsequent crisis has further worsened the situation in the EU;

388.   Underlines the deep, general, widespread socio-economic impact of the pandemic on European societies, which has caused major distress and intense pressure on workers; stresses that the shock to the labour market has been dramatic, particularly for low-paid jobs, low-skilled workers and generally marginalised people and communities, and regrets that existing economic divergences within the EU were aggravated by the pandemic;

389.   Notes that job losses during the pandemic were concentrated in low-paid jobs and among employees with atypical contracts, and that the statistics showed more women [51] to have been affected than men, but that the recovery in employment during 2021 was driven by growth [52] in well-paid jobs and occupations; underlines that the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on certain categories of workers, such as the self-employed, those in feminised work sectors, platform workers, freelance workers, contractual workers including sub-contracted, seasonal and temporary workers, cross-border workers and those in the cultural and creative sectors as well as tourism, hospitality and retail; notes that as a result of the pandemic, the income gap in the EU has widened and socioeconomic disparities have deepened;

390.   Stresses that young people were strongly impacted by the crisis, which affected their employment prospects and disrupted their education;

391.   Notes that the surge in youth unemployment is due to the over-representation of young people in precarious employment, such as part-time, fixed-term, or temporary agency work; highlights that many young people did not have access to minimum income schemes in EU countries;

392.   Stresses that about 90 % of SMEs reported suffering an economic impact in the first months of the pandemic, with the worst affected sector being services, with a drop in turnover of between 60 % and 70 %; notes that the food sector followed with an impact of between 10 % and 15 %; points out that 30 % of all SMEs reported that their turnover suffered at least an 80 % loss and that the EU hospitality sector was the worst affected, with over 1.6 million jobs being lost in this sector between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the fourth quarter of 2020;

393.   Highlights that most countries were reliant on tourism [53] and consequently some suffered a much larger GDP shock as a result of pandemic lockdowns compared to others owing to more challenging epidemiological situations and pre-existing socioeconomic conditions, including one of the principle sources of economic activity; notes that the loss of jobs in the hospitality and tourism sectors has aggravated a pre-existing lack of qualified or adequate workforce, making the retention of talent even more difficult;

394.   Welcomes the Member States’ efforts to help SMEs with schemes such as loan guarantees or subsidies as exceptional measures in times of crisis; regrets, however, the disparities in the national economic responses to the pandemic in terms of the size and form of aid provided, particularly for SMEs, while recognising Member States’ differing socioeconomic situations; notes that SMEs in all European countries used the short-term unemployment scheme to protect their workers and businesses and that Member States also implemented income subsidies to cover self-employed workers’ loss of income; welcomes the work done by EU-OSHA to support the protection of occupational health during the crisis;

395.   Stresses that the ILO special report on the impact on youth employment found that the youth labour market was three times worse off during the pandemic than that for adults;

396.   Notes that the labour market is still affected by the consequences of the pandemic and the vast majority of workers were affected by lengthy closures and limitations;

397.   Underlines the enormous impact COVID-19 had on healthcare workers, both directly in terms of health risks, infections and deaths, and also indirectly on their working conditions, working hours, pressure and stress; recalls that the pandemic further increased the strain on healthcare workers by requiring them to work extra hours and exposed them to unprecedented physical and mental pressure; stresses that during the crisis healthcare workers’ right to work in a safe and protected environment was denied; recognises the impact of COVID-19 on the social care and health sectors particularly in terms of funding, staffing and other resources;

398.   Notes the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of entrepreneurs and workers who struggled with the pressure of having to retain jobs and keep their businesses afloat; highlights the important role played by constructive social dialogue and collective bargaining in mitigating the adverse effects of the pandemic and in achieving consensus on targeted measures to protect those workers and enterprises hardest hit by the crisis;

b)   EU Financing Instruments (EU4Health measures, Horizon Europe, Civil Protection Mechanism, Cohesion Funds, Recovery Fund etc)

399.   Notes that the EU reacted quickly to the economic recession caused by the pandemic, by easing State aid rules, suspending fiscal rules, introducing the temporary European instrument called Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE), launching NextGenerationEU, as well as investing in joint vaccine financing; acknowledges that Member States were able to spend and borrow easily thanks to the actions of the EU monetary and political authorities; recognises the varying impacts of the pandemic on Member States’ GDP, with certain countries and island regions experiencing larger shocks owing to factors such as a worse epidemiological situation, leading to stricter lockdowns, and differing pre-existing socioeconomic structures;

400.   Welcomes efforts by the EU to quickly put in place temporary economic measures such as the European Central Bank’s pandemic emergency purchase programme, the triggering of the general escape clause in the Stability and Growth Pact and the Commission’s adoption of an extraordinary State aid framework to help Member States and businesses; points out that Member States were also able to spend and borrow easily thanks to the actions of the EU monetary and political authorities;

401.   Welcomes the measures and instruments that followed, with the development of SURE, the RRF and NextGenerationEU, to which the EU committed EUR 800 billion for grants and loans; underlines that the RRF and SURE were instrumental in mitigating the economic and social impact of the pandemic in keeping our citizens at work; recognises however, the need to move towards structural financial support measures in the long term, and in particular the importance of an instrument for unemployed workers, such as SURE, that remains in use for the duration of the current exceptional situation and continues to be based on loans and quickly activated in the event of new external financial or economic shocks;

402.   Calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that the SURE instrument continues supporting short-time work schemes, workers’ income and workers that would be temporarily laid-off because of the current exceptional situation and its ensuing consequences;

403.   Encourages Member States to use the full potential of the RRF, including loans, to counter the effects of the pandemic and the challenges ahead; stresses that delays in approving national recovery and resilience plans by Member States severely affected the ability of local and regional authorities to adequately address the effects of the pandemic on their communities, businesses and citizens, this may have resulted in long-term worsening of local and regional economic situation; in view of future crises notes the need to carry out reforms agreed in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans in order ensure quicker and effective implementation of the NextGenerationEU funds which would allow Member States to re- establish a level playing field vital in supporting recovery of EU regions and municipalities facing economic uncertainty;

404.   Believes that there are transparency issues concerning the design and implementation of the Resilience and Recovery Fund facility, including a lack of clear obligations to publish data on details of the spending of the funds received and the absence of common standards on data sharing, posing a significant risk of corruption; recommends that Member States should put more effort into sharing data on their national recovery plans and optimising national recovery and resilience mechanisms with the support of the Commission; welcomes the REPowerEU regulation that obliges Member States to publish information on the top 100 beneficiaries of the Recovery and Resilience Facility; calls for clear commitments from Member States to publish data on final beneficiaries and information on the destination of the funds received; emphasises the need to address risks of corruption and ineffective spending;

405.   Emphasises the importance of providing accessible information about the loans and grants supported by the EUR 700 billion Recovery and Resilience Facility; in particular, information from Member States on compliance with any conditions attached to the EU funds and measures to ensure   public scrutiny of the milestones reached by Member States;

406.   Notes that the RRF investments in the green transition and digital transformation should contribute to increasing the EU’s open strategic autonomy and independence, and according to the Commission, the RRF is expected to give a major boost to the implementation of the EU’s industrial strategy and thus contribute to the further development of the EU’s industries;

407.   Recognises the success of temporary State aid framework and investment in bringing many EU Member States back to pre-pandemic GDP levels, retaining employment, and keeping businesses running;

408.   Highlights that to date EUR 100 billion of financial assistance has been allocated by SURE across 19 Member States, NextGenerationEU loans have been disbursed to seven Member States and allocation to other Member States is ongoing;

409.   Notes that across Europe EU economic support instruments have helped 31 million people keep their jobs and 2.5 million firms keep their business running and that these support instruments, in conjunction with existing national temporary schemes, have helped reduce unemployment in Europe by 1.5 million;

410.   Recognises the important role of some local and regional authorities in making protecting public health a priority while also successfully sustaining economic activity; calls for the recognition of the role played by family businesses, who often have a strong link to the local community they are operating in, prioritising retaining employees during the pandemic and thus supporting the economic recovery and transport workers whose continued efforts ensured the supply of vital goods and medicines;

c)   The impact of COVID-19 measures, including lockdowns, on women and girls, young people and children

I)   Women and girls

411.   Highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative effect on gender equality; acknowledges that women still provide the majority of unpaid care such as domestic work, childcare and child-related work; stresses the pivotal role and over-representation of women working in professions categorised as ‘essential’, such as social, care, cleaning, education, health and retail sectors that kept our societies running during the COVID-19 crisis and that the pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated existing inequalities and structural challenges faced by women and girls in all their diversity, in particular those at risk of intersectional discrimination;

412.   Notes that a stronger negative economic impact could be seen for women than men, that women’s labour-market participation in certain sectors has either stagnated or decreased and that this could have a strong impact on women’s pensions by aggravating the already wide pension gap and increasing the risk of poverty and economic dependency;

413.   Acknowledges that in 2020, 3.6 % of women’s employment was lost compared to 2.9 % of men’s employment, while the greatest losses were in the Americas, followed by Asia-Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, and Africa; notes that in 2021, there were still 20 million fewer women in work than before the pandemic, compared to 10 million fewer men; underlines that women experienced more work-life conflict during lockdowns and that the long-term effects of this crisis will most likely affect women severely because of the gendered social role in the case of care work; notes that women were overrepresented in the hardest-hit sectors, such as the hospitality and food services sector, manufacturing, care and the formal health sector; takes the view that those delivering care were at centre stage of the pandemic; notes that a large percentage of workers in care are women who are subject to unequal pay;

414.   Notes the reduction in care services and increase in unpaid care work carried out by women during the COVID-19 pandemic, including women becoming the main carers for the vulnerable and the sick in their families as well as carrying the burden of activities related to homeschooling, while having to attend to their own professional tasks; underlines that this re-established and reinforced gender inequalities and put in sharp relief many structural problems, entrenched in Europe’s social care system such as under-resourced care facilities and healthcare systems, or lack of investment; notes that these have had significant negative consequences for women in terms of economic dependence; highlights that this discriminatory gender aspect has to be taken into account when designing care strategies and policies; calls on the Commission to come up with a care strategy to address unpaid labour in the care sector; notes that female health services were impacted by the overloading of national health systems, with significant disruptions to cancer screening as well as vaccinations and post- and prenatal care;

415.   Stresses that it has been established, especially by UNICEF, that the COVID-19 pandemic is increasing the risk of female genital mutilation, with the UN predicting that an additional two million girls will be subjected to the practice in the next 10 years, indeed, the UN says that COVID-19 has disproportionately affected girls and women, resulting in what it calls ‘a shadow pandemic’ disrupting the elimination of all harmful customs including female genital mutilation, especially in Africa;

ii)   Young people and children

416.   Underlines that the restrictive measures in Member States not only impacted youth education and employment but also affected young people’s mental health and social capital; is concerned that there is strong evidence of a rise in mental health problems, anxiety, depression-related symptoms and suicidal behaviours; highlights that the long-term consequences of the pandemic on mental health are likely to have had a stronger impact on vulnerable young people and those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds or marginalised communities and to have compounded other issues; notes that lockdowns and the consequent lack of physical exercise had an impact on people’s health and well-being and that all these issues were particularly manifest in vulnerable at-risk groups;

417.   Notes that lockdowns prevented young people living in vulnerable situations from accessing and affording mental health services; urges the Member States to promote cross-sectoral public investments to tackle mental disorders among children and young people;

418.   Notes that up to 1.6 billion children worldwide [54] were affected by school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic and it is estimated that at least 24 million students could drop out of school as a result; is concerned that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the socioeconomic issues faced by young people, and that the combination of job losses and unpaid or low-paid work has increased the risk of poverty among young people; is concerned that the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a large number of young people in situations of vulnerability and precariousness that have prevented them from accessing basic needs;

419.   Notes that students experienced a decline in educational quality and showed a decline in reading, writing and maths learning performance and the development of skills, which has had a negative long-term impact; points out that among students from low-income and poor households this learning deficit was found to be twice that among those from higher-income households, such that the gap between children from vulnerable households and children from socio-economically resilient households widened;

420.   Notes the differences in measures taken by Member States in response to the differing epidemiological situations in each Member State, to contain the spread of the virus such as school closures and the impact this had on children and teachers;

421.   Stresses also the key role played by teachers in adapting to and delivering online teaching and their role in contributing to the psychological support and development of children and young people; in this regard recognises the need to promote the mental health literacy of teachers, and all education personnel, as well as youth workers to ensure they are equipped to support children and themselves during times of crisis; notes that the COVID-19 crisis resulted in teachers having to adapt faster to online teaching and online educational support instruments during school closures;

422.   Underlines that digitalisation allowed the resumption of educational activities during lockdowns, facilitating learning, but shortcomings in the availability to all children of information and communications technology, supporting materials, access to digital services, other educational infrastructure and the gap in integration exposed the weaknesses in school systems; acknowledges that children from ethnic minorities, such as Roma and those with a migrant background and children with disabilities were disproportionately affected;

423.   Reports that social inequalities have always affected children’s mental well-being but that this has become a serious social issue in the wake of the pandemic; notes that the pandemic exacerbated domestic violence and abuse towards children and widened educational and digital divides, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds; believes that school closures also complicated the situation of disadvantaged children making their position even more precarious;

424.   Is concerned that during the pandemic children and young people suffering from mental health issues received insufficient mental and psychological support and this could remain an ongoing issue;

425.   Stresses that children and young people with disabilities or on the autistic spectrum suffered disproportionately from the hardships caused by the pandemic and lockdowns; points out that during the pandemic many support services were suspended leaving parents and other carers without essential assistance;

d)   The impact of COVID-19 on the elderly and vulnerable/marginalised groups

426.   Finds that the pandemic and lock downs, while unavoidable owing to the public health concerns, had a disastrous impact on persons with disabilities; emphasises that persons with disabilities faced discrimination in terms of receiving adequate information about the pandemic and access to healthcare and they also encountered difficulty obtaining PPE; notes that persons with disabilities faced limited access to care, education and rehabilitation services (as a result of unequal access to digital tools); notes with concern the high death toll among persons with disabilities who were in institutions;

427.   Stresses that lockdowns severely impacted many people who were already marginalised or disadvantaged by aggravating their social conditions, reducing their chances of finding work, and limiting their participation in society and their rights as citizens; recalls that the pandemic exacerbated pre-existing socioeconomic difficulties and challenges bringing further complications for those who suffered from addiction and mental health issues, but also affected low-income families, women, the elderly, children, migrants, refugees, LGBTQIA+ persons, the homeless and people with disabilities; notes that the needs of socially disadvantaged groups were not always met during lockdowns, and the lessons learned need to be properly addressed; points out that care and social services, including home care and non-residential care services were not considered critical infrastructure and the important role of socioeconomic factors in health risks was not recognised;

428.   Notes that the consequences of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected the poorest, disadvantaged, marginalised and unprotected in society, including persons with physical and intellectual disabilities, chronic medical conditions, mental health problems and the elderly, or those persons who already had limited or no access to basic hygiene or treatment for their healthcare needs, and that these groups became even more vulnerable as a result of the pandemic;

429.   Recalls the tragic impact of COVID-19 on long-term residential facilities in Europe, with care homes accounting for more than 50 % of COVID-related deaths in some Member States; notes with concern that nursing home patients were excluded from care during the peaks of the pandemic, resulting in alarming mortality rates among the elderly; notes that deaths among the elderly accounted for a large portion of COVID-19 fatalities and recalls the dramatic situation suffered by many of them in retirement homes and long-term care facilities resulting from delays and obstacles to their treatment and care;

430.   States that the pandemic had a major impact on the elderly and people with dementia owing to their isolation and reduced opportunities for social interaction, as well as the suspension of their daily activities; notes that it also increased signs of depression and anxiety among the elderly and their carers, as well as increased financial difficulties for carers; points out that this contributed to the progression of the dementia-related symptoms, and adults with dementia and COVID-19 experienced serious difficulties in receiving appropriate medical care and assistance;

431.   Notes that the pandemic has exposed weaknesses in the preparedness of nursing homes and long-term care facilities for public health emergencies; points out that many nursing homes and long-term care facilities faced shortages of PPE, testing supplies, and staff during the pandemic; calls on the EU and Member States to ensure that care homes and their residents have access to healthcare, including medical referrals, protective equipment, materials, personnel and expertise needed to respond to pandemic; recommends extending regular inspections through a system of external, independent audits and establishing special inspection systems in care homes during periods of isolation;

432.   Highlights that the pandemic and the restrictive measures exacerbated pre-existing disparities in obesity and metabolic health, with an overall rise in excess body weight, especially among women, lower educated and lower paid people, the inhabitants of the ORs, and psychiatric patients; notes that the quality of people’s diets often worsened, and physical activity declined while sport facilities and play areas were closed, leading to a rise in sedentary behaviour;

433.   Calls on Member States to consider establishing emergency management schemes for sports infrastructure to prevent operational limitations owing to unexpected events such as a pandemic, as well as the implementation of safety and security guidelines to ensure the safety of users of sports infrastructure;

434.   Notes that homeless people faced challenges in staying safe from infection, increasing their mortality risk, and shelters did not operate adequately because of smaller numbers of workers and volunteers as well as a lack of proper initial guidance and financial support to services;

435.   Stresses that the response to health emergencies requires a human-rights-based approach and must ensure the safety of vulnerable and marginalised groups by guaranteeing their access to healthcare while not restricting their freedom of movement, in line with the ECHR;

436.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide comprehensive, multidisciplinary palliative care for patients during pandemics and health crises; calls for improved practice in home and hospital palliative care across the EU; encourages Member States to maximise the number of palliative units in each region and to ensure sustainable funding and sufficient well-trained human resources;

e)   COVID-19 and the emergence of digital technologies for business and workers: risks and opportunities

437.   Notes that during the pandemic the EU moved towards new forms of digitalisation and flexible working; highlights that the appropriate use of digital tools can be an asset to employers and workers in terms of allowing greater freedom, independence and flexibility to better organise working time and working tasks, reduce time spent travelling to work, reduce emissions and make it easier to manage personal and family obligations, thus enabling a better work-life balance; notes that workers’ needs vary widely and therefore emphasises the importance of developing a clear framework that simultaneously promotes personal flexibility and protects workers’ rights;

438.   Stresses that the digitalisation of work should not lead to a deterioration in workers’ rights or working conditions; recognises that digitalisation in the world of work can have negative impacts on working conditions, such as when workers are required to work longer hours or must ensure their availability outside working hours; stresses, therefore, the importance of the right to disconnect; notes that workers’ needs vary widely and emphasises the importance of developing a clear framework that simultaneously promotes personal flexibility and protects workers’ rights; points out that women are more likely to telework due to their care responsibilities, hence a gender-sensitive European framework for telework is paramount; calls on the Commission to put forward proposals that set standards for teleworking conditions throughout the European Union, with the aim of guaranteeing fair and appropriate working and employment conditions within the digital economy;

439.   Notes that digitalisation in the world of work also entails a risk in terms of management and the right to privacy; underlines that changes in working conditions must always be negotiated with trade unions and workers’ representatives in order to achieve a consensual decision; welcomes, in this regard, the agreement of social partners to include negotiations on legally binding measures to regulate telework and include the right to disconnect in their work programme for the 2022-2024 social dialogue;

440.   Points out that women are more likely to telework due to their care responsibilities; calls for a gender-sensitive European framework for telework to be implemented, which will also consider gender roles in the light of future crises with a clear focus on reconciling work and private life; calls for the implementation of telework in future pandemics to be carried out while respecting the gender equality principle and in accordance with the principle of co-responsibility;

441.   Underlines that the appropriate use of digital tools has made it possible, in the case of certain professions, to limit the number of people unable to find work;

f)   Conclusions

i)   Businesses and workers

442.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary steps to defend Europe’s social market economy, which is resilient and quickly reacts to crises and which nurtures a truly business-friendly environment, with increased access to capital, increased simplification of procedures and less red tape for European companies, especially SMEs, so as to enable them to react quickly, continue their business innovation and encourage entrepreneurship, while at the same time protecting and enforcing workers’ rights within the EU’s borders;

443.   Stresses that businesses in the tourism sector should benefit from additional training and development, digitalisation and a more sustainable business model in order to be more resilient and better prepared in the event of a new health or other crisis; stresses that passengers’ and consumers’ rights were widely breached by tour operators, transport operators and online booking intermediaries during the pandemic;

444.   Stresses the need to strengthen support for EU and Member States’ social security policies with due respect for the principle of subsidiarity and in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights and the employment guidelines, so that no one is left behind; stresses, further, the need to achieve equal and effective access to adequate social protection, thereby guaranteeing equal and fair access to high-quality healthcare services, strengthening efforts to achieve higher levels of quality employment while narrowing inequalities and gender gaps in relation to pay and benefits, further reinforcing social dialogue while bridging the digital gap and preventing precarious or undeclared work in the care sector;

445.   Calls for a more resilient labour market with strengthened social dialogue and social partners who could take part in high-level policy crises governance bodies; stresses the need for more equal and fairer working conditions for all workers across the EU, including the most vulnerable and, in particular, during times of crisis;

446.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support, strengthen and safeguard the single market, especially the freedom of movement (of people, goods and services) in future pandemics while always taking into account public health concerns and the epidemiological situation, and minimise the burden of documentation and legislation and therefore preserve the integrity of the single market; emphasises the need for rules and guidelines on travelling and disease detection to be harmonised between the Member States, taking into consideration the needs of SMEs; recalls that the free movement of goods is fundamental for well-functioning value chains, in particular for vaccines and other medical countermeasures;

447.   Emphasises that the Support to Mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) instrument helps safeguard jobs, as do other similar programmes in the form of one-off economic and social solidarity measures in Europe, while emphasising that such programmes should be based on loans, and only activated in the event of severe external financial or economic shocks;

448.   Notes that the Commission recommended that Member States recognise COVID-19 as an occupational disease in certain sectors during a pandemic;

449.   States that while EU cooperation during the pandemic suffered some teething problems, it quickly made up for lost time with several key initiatives; notes that the free movement of goods and critical health staff was made possible through the establishment of green corridors; notes that the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) played an important role in providing guidelines and information to businesses about COVID-19 preventive measures, while the QR-code-based COVID-19 certificate demonstrated that the EU was able to create a common digital certificate to benefit administrations, companies and the public;

450.   Recommends that lockdowns or other drastic safety measures should be taken in dialogue with local and regional authorities, economic and social partners and civil society, as well as with organisations in accordance with national law and practices at all the different stages of an unfolding emergency, while respecting the duty and prerogative of public authorities to take measures to protect people’s health and safety; underlines that measures should be limited to what is necessary and proportionate;

451.   Underlines that the EU Member States recognised the critical role that SMEs played in their economies and implemented various measures to strengthen their position during the pandemic; concludes that measures should be further boosted to preserve jobs, including SME jobs, where possible through support schemes, adequate income support, upskilling and reskilling of workers, education and lifelong learning, and reinforced support for the hardest-hit self-employed sectors;

452.   Calls on the Member States to take full advantage of RRF funding, which is built on the notion of ‘build back better’, through the timely and effective implementation of funds with a view to strengthening social investments, reinforcing research and innovation and kick-starting the economy through ambitious reforms and investments, focusing particularly on the green and digital transition, in order to make the EU more socially resilient; believes, further, that while taking into account the demographic change, reinforcing our public healthcare systems and tackling health inequalities should be the third pillar of this transition; 

453.   Believes that the EU should endeavour to ensure solidarity and coordination between the Member States on the economy to strengthen EU competitiveness while pursuing social and climate objectives and to avoid fragmentation of the single market;

454.   Recommends that support for the social care and health sectors be included in future pandemic preparedness efforts; calls on the Member States to develop preparedness plans for future health crises in their national occupational health and safety strategies, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders; underlines the necessity to establish effective mechanisms to coordinate these plans at EU level, taking into account the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work on pandemic and occupational safety and health-related issues; considers that the protection and promotion of mental health should be an integral part of these occupational health and safety plans for future health crises;

455.   Stresses the need to implement specific measures and policies at EU and national level to protect and support healthcare workers, as well as other essential workers, including through appropriate and sufficient resources;

ii)   Women

456.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to combat gender-based violence in all its forms and wherever it occurs, whether inside or outside the home or in the workplace; welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, but calls for its content to be improved to better protect all victims, in particular those at risk of multiple forms of discrimination;

457.   Calls for typically female-dominated work to be reassessed and revaluated and for cross-sector gender-neutral job evaluation tools to be developed and applied in order to better assess and more fairly remunerate female-dominated work and ensure equal pay or equal work and work of equal value;

458.   Suggests that the development of digital solutions should be promoted to provide support more easily and safely; calls for the adoption of economic, social and financial support instruments for women who are separating from their partners after suffering violence and who have no means of financial support; recommends that in the future, services helping victims of gender-based violence be defined as essential;

459.   Believes that cooperation between countries should be enhanced while care be decentralised to better reach isolated populations; is convinced that local communities, the role of women and further enhanced gender equality have to be at the centre of solutions; considers that fostering innovation and digitalisation within health services, particularly in areas where health provision is deficient, inadequate or lagging, is key as health services rely on the expertise of civil society organisations [55] ;

460.   Calls on the Commission to criminalise all forms of sexual exploitation in a harmonised way so as to provide a similar level of protection to all women in the EU no matter where they live; supports the inclusion in the directive of a definition of sexual violence that is broader than the definition of rape, and a definition of sexual harassment in line with the existing EU anti-discrimination directives and following the standards of the Istanbul Convention;

461.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to step up their efforts to mainstream the gender perspective in all EU policies and national recovery plans; stresses that gender mainstreaming in crisis situations is crucial to ensuring that the different experiences faced by women and men are recognised and addressed in this regard;

462.   Highlights the importance of training staff to understand and effectively implement gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting; highlights the fact that gender mainstreaming should also be part of policies aimed at increasing the gender balance in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education, as well as in research and innovation; is concerned about the high share of minimum wage and sub-minimum earners among care professionals, the majority of whom are women, and believes that EU measures should promote gender equality in the care and social services sector and more generally in the labour market;

iii)   Young people and children

463.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to closely monitor the use of RRF funds and their role in supporting measures for children, young people and young families; considers that investments should be made in compensatory policies, focusing on low socioeconomic status individuals and children from disadvantaged groups, programmes to prevent and tackle learning deficits, evidence-based education, adaptation of curricula, including to the green and digital transition, and investment in technology, school infrastructure and teachers’ professional development; is convinced that more EU funding on research, education and culture is needed in line with the EU strategy on the rights of the child and the European Child Guarantee; notes that the latter should also be used to bolster the worst effects of child poverty brought about by COVID-19 and aggravated by the current cost of living crisis;

464.   Calls on the Commission to gather more information about the impact of the pandemic on children’s rights, such as the right to health, the effects on psychosocial development due to social isolation resulting from quarantine, the empowerment of children regarding their rights and the inclusion of emergency measures concerning children in policy and legislation; calls, in this regard, for the EU and the Member States to allocate appropriate resources to obtain and analyse such data;

465.   Calls, in this regard, for the EU and the Member States to boost funding for EU research on children and young people in general, as well as their data; highlights the need to focus on improving the mental health of young people and children in the wake of the pandemic, including through measures taken at EU level through the adoption of an EU strategy on mental health;

466.   Calls on the Member States to develop clear action plans for schools to tackle the effects the pandemic had on learning and learning results; recommends that in future health crises schools and other educational facilities remain open if the epidemiological situation allows it, while always respecting the health and safety of students and teachers and prioritising the protection of the public’s health; asks for education policy to be part of the emergency response strategy, as well as childcare solutions, both collective and individual;

467.   States that the shift to e-learning during COVID-19 posed several challenges for students, teachers and educational institutions, mainly due to unequal access to technology and internet connectivity, especially for students from low-income families or those living in rural areas, resulting in disparities in educational opportunities; highlights that e-learning can complement in-presence education; stresses that efforts should be made to make digital literacy widespread at all levels of society by enabling the proper use of digital tools and infrastructure, and that the digitalisation of schools should be supported and constantly developed; considers that where difficulties are observed, flexible solutions should be offered where possible;

468.   Calls on the Member States to include digital literacy in the curricula of all learning institutions and to provide the necessary training and equipment for teachers and educators; reiterates the provision in the Child Guarantee that recommends Member States to ensure that all school-aged children have access to a digital device and to electricity and good internet in their homes; believes that adequate measures should be introduced to equip all children and young people with the technological skills and knowledge they need to thrive in the digital age;

469.   Highlights the potential of arts and culture as a key component of pandemic response because of the ability of arts and culture organisations to address well-being, mental health and social support issues, including for groups that might otherwise be difficult to reach; recalls that arts and culture are of fundamental importance for the development of the individual identity of children and young people, as well as for their education, including their understanding of society and for their overall well-being; is concerned about the negative impact on access to art and culture due to COVID-related closures of cultural venues; highlights, in this regard, the potential of arts and culture to address the mental health and social well-being of groups and individuals that may otherwise be difficult to reach and calls for greater inclusion of the arts and culture sector in emergency response strategies;

470.   Encourages the Member States not to apply a one-size-fits-all approach when special measures are necessary and to consult health and safety professionals, schools, teachers, youth organisations and youth services, as well as parents, in order to take appropriate account of the needs of different age groups, vulnerable groups and young people with special needs, as well as disadvantaged and marginalised groups;

471.   Recommends that UNICEF’s guidance on Child Rights Impact Assessment should be applied to policymaking, legislation and emergency measures to avoid negative repercussions on children; 

472.   Calls on the European institutions to carry out a ‘youth check’ for all the EU’s legislative proposals in line with the recommendations from the Conference on the Future of Europe;

473.   Calls on the Member States to introduce extra learning programmes in the short term, such as summer schools or additional tutoring, in order to decrease the learning gap and address existing learning deficits, targeting, in particular, children from vulnerable households;

iv)   Elderly and vulnerable/marginalised groups

474.   Welcomes the green paper on ageing, the report on the impact of demographic change and the European care strategy as the first steps for an overall EU strategy to address the ageing of the population in Europe; stresses the need for the EU and the Member States to take urgent action to address the health and care needs of an ageing European population, including addressing NCDs through the promotion of active and healthy ageing in line with the WHO’s Decade of Healthy Ageing;

475.   Notes that as the potential for longevity increases, so does the importance of health-related behaviours, such as the promotion of healthy environments and lifestyles, at all ages (including middle and older ages); calls, therefore, for healthy longevity research and measures to better prevent NCDs while ensuring improvements in the management and care of NCDs, to reduce the impact of CDs, to account for and respond to multi-morbidity and polypharmacy and to make ageing an opportunity rather than an obstacle;

476.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to invest in and develop inclusive online tools, to address digital poverty and to digitally empower especially older persons and people with disabilities, young people and vulnerable groups, to support online healthcare and social services and institutions financially and to develop support measures for caregivers; stresses the importance of implementing measures to ensure equal access to the internet and digital technology in all Member States and for all subgroups of the population;

477.   Points out that there are older people who have difficulties with using and interacting with technological tools and that digitalisation is making it impossible for them to interact with basic services and institutions; stresses, therefore, that online healthcare should be complementary and never a substitute for face-to-face care, particularly for this group of people for whom the digital divide is most evident; suggests that analogue channels should be required to cater for elderly people in order to prevent them from feeling alienated from society;

478.   Is of the opinion that there is a need to further develop innovative solutions that emerged during the pandemic, such as new modes of working, digitalisation and access for all; calls for the re- and upskilling of older workers;

479.   Recommends that the EU and the Member States ensure that the right to long-term care be integrated in their social protection systems and invest in a health and care plan for meeting the needs of the growing elderly population, including residential care facilities, in a socially just manner;

480.   Calls for each care home for elderly people and other health and social care centres to have a contingency plan specifically adapted to their case and situation in which they are described and reviewed in a systematic and scheduled manner, with the creation of a team to manage emergencies and infectious outbreaks, made up of both health professionals and staff from the home itself, as well as the provision of the necessary training in emergency and crisis management; stresses the need for people in care facilities and elderly people to remain socially and mentally active, for example, by making it possible for them to continue to interact with their family, in order to prevent isolation, the risk of depression and death;

481.   Recommends that Member States should carefully evaluate the risk-benefit of restrictions on physical activity before implementing them; considers that during a health crisis, governments should provide guidance and encourage better diets and physical activity for people, with a special focus on marginalised and disadvantaged groups, in order to increase the resilience of populations in the Member States in the event of a future pandemic;

482.Calls for the EU and the Member States to invest in a disability-inclusive process of prevention, preparedness and response to crisis, which would anticipate devastating impacts of future crises on disabled people; recalls that all Member States have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and stresses that preparedness plans and pandemic measures must be in line with this;

483.   Calls on the Member States to promote policies focusing on equality of opportunity by making the collection of equality data in the context of a pandemic a norm across the public sectors; calls, further, on the Member States to cooperate with civil society in the collection and analysis of equality data;

484.   Underlines the contribution elderly people make to society and stresses that innovative ideas for social support can contribute to their protection;

485.   Encourages the Member States to set up an intergenerational solidarity mechanism to combat loneliness, for example, in the form of civic service, enabling older people to interact with younger people;

4.   The EU and the world

a)   The EU and the management of the pandemic on a global level

i)   Relations with the WTO, the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR)

486.   Notes that, in spite of massive growth in the trade of medical products, there have been considerable inefficiencies in access to personal protection equipment, treatments, vaccines and diagnostics; notes that at the peak of the pandemic, competition among countries and restrictive measures on access to medical devices, personal protective equipment, screening and vaccines led to production being disrupted and higher prices;

487.   Whereas high vulnerability linked to poor economic diversification and high dependency on exports of raw materials underline the need to shorten current supply chains;

488.   Underlines that the pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of global supply chains and the need to build regional value chains and boost regional integration;

489.   Notes that during the pandemic the principle of solidarity was not always respected, that it is the Member States’ responsibility to facilitate the distribution of medical products and that the WTO’s role in this regard is to facilitate international trade through international regulatory cooperation in order to boost goods imports and reduce export bans or restrictions which are detrimental for access to medical products;

490.   Regrets the EU’s dependency on external sources of personal protection equipment;

491.   Highlights the fact that multiple factors have led to limited global access to vaccines and reiterates calls for the WTO to take greater action to ensure the free flow of supply chains and vaccine deliveries, in particular as regards export restrictions; regrets that many countries, including some EU partners, resorted to protectionist measures in the form of export restrictions;

492.   Calls for the EU to focus on open strategic autonomy, supporting global diversification and resilience of supply chains, and reshoring production where needed to address high dependencies on third countries with an open, rules-based multilateral trading system at its core to ensure the global availability of medical products; encourages countries to join the WTO’s Agreement on Trade in Pharmaceutical Products and urge for its scope to be extended to all pharmaceutical and medicinal products; advocates support for European pharmaceutical SMEs that would contribute to the development of a diverse portfolio of vaccines and thus to the EU’s strategic autonomy in the health sector, underlines that the global health response must be guided by the principle of solidarity, considering health as a public good and that the EU should work hand in hand with multilateral actors in developing countries to improve the resilience and preparedness of healthcare systems for the most vulnerable;

493.   Notes that the patent protection system incentivises companies to invest in innovation and to produce new medical tools that should be at the service of citizens and promote public interest; notes, at the same time, that the exclusionary effect of patents may lead to limited market supply and reduced access to medicines and pharmaceutical products; underlines that in times of crisis, as well as to protect public health and people’s lives, public authorities should be able to intervene on this system and use the means needed to grant access to diagnostics, prevention and treatments and care to everyone;

494.   Notes the cooperation between the EU and the WHO in response to the pandemic; underlines the need to further reinforce this cooperation with a more coordinated, long-term approach and with a stronger, well-funded and independent UN system at its core; recalls, particularly, the important role of the WHO Europe office in the surveillance and evaluation of European health programmes; calls for the European Union to assume a more strategic, assertive and effective role in global health; stresses the need for the EU to assume the role of formal observer at the WHO;

495.   Emphasises that the WHO and UNICEF accompanied countries from the beginning to the end of their vaccine strategy, until the very last steps in delivery; notes, however, that there were delays and uncertainties in supply and that the situation improved only once global supply was largely meeting global demand;

496.   Underlines the need to introduce safeguards on re-exports in order to prevent illicit trade and avoid boosting existing markets during a health emergency; deplores the placing of limitations on the movement of health goods during pandemics in the EU and globally and the fact that in the event of a humanitarian emergency, an initially non-eligible country may be the destination;

497.   Considers that a multilateral, independent and globally coordinated response based on scientific foundations and the precautionary principle and taking into account the role of regional bodies is crucial to building up global resilience against future health crises, and that multilateral organisation needs to be given more importance; notes in this regard that multilateral organisations, particularly within the UN system, must be reinforced in order for them to be able to fulfil their mandate;

498.   Underlines that the One Health approach is fundamental and should remain central to the WHO in order to address global public health challenges; emphasises that it must be the guiding principle and reference for public policies as regards the animal-human interface and the approach against AMR; notes that, although the WHO One Health Panel has already given recommendations, these need to be better reflected in concrete policies and put into practice at EU, national and regional levels; recommends the expansion of the WHO in order to prevent research-related spillovers through it overseeing research programmes on potentially dangerous pathogens; calls for the EU to promote the reinforcement and the expansion of the WHO by increasing its overall budget and reinforcing its work on potential exposure routes and the highest-risk environments for transmission of zoonotic diseases; notes that in order to prevent natural spillovers, global cooperation on the surveillance and regulation of domestic animal and wild animal trade will be needed, and that the WHO will play an important role to that effect; also recommends that the EU support the expansion of the WHO in order to prevent research-related spillovers, by overseeing the biosafety, biosecurity and bio-risk management of national and international research programmes that are engaged in the collection, testing, and the genetic manipulation of potentially dangerous pathogens;

499.   Demands that the role of parliaments be taken into account in international discussions concerning global health in order to reinforce the EU’s international health cooperation, ensure respect for democratic principles and increase the legitimacy of those discussions, in particular through information exchanges at international level, which should cover all stages from preparedness to response, including One Health;

ii)   Role in initiatives such as COVAX

500.   Highlights the fact that COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) was created with the aim of delivering vaccines to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) but did not live up to the high expectations, accumulated delays and failed to meet LMIC needs; notes that this led to low- and middle-income countries making bilateral deals with manufacturers in a highly competitive market, leading to unfair pricing and unfavourable liability clauses; expresses concern that COVAX did not showcase transparent standards concerning its agreements and operations, leading to a lack of public scrutiny over these processes and inclusion of low- and middle- income countries; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to advocate transparency and inclusion standards in new and current international platforms concerning access to health technologies;

501.   Recognises that there is considerable effort at the global scale to increase production capacity, supported with a large use of public funds; welcomes the fact that the EU became a model in that matter and a large investor both in terms of push (before development) and pull (advance purchase agreements) investments, which made it possible to secure enough vaccines; recalls that public investments must bring public return in terms of affordability, availability and accessibility of the end products and calls on the Commission and the Member States to address the lack of production capacities and of technology transfers towards low-and middle- income countries and to establish a global mechanism to enhance production capacities both within the EU and on a global scale;

502.   Underlines that public-private cooperation during the pandemic was decisive in addressing the challenges and delivering vaccines; recalls that public-private cooperation during the health emergency is structurally different from cooperation under ‘normal’ circumstances; recalls that a large amount of public funding played a key role in the development cycle of the product (vaccine), in conjunction with advance purchase agreements before regulatory approval; emphasises that in a health crisis, where there is much more urgency and uncertainty, public funding plays an even bigger role; notes that this can work only if global frameworks are well drafted and if there is close coordination between all the actors involved;

iii)   EU Global Health Strategy

503.   Notes that the COVID-19 Task Force under the Commission’s Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) played an important role in increasing the EU’s open strategic autonomy and resilience in the face of the pandemic by supporting research and innovation, strengthening supply chains and encouraging greater cooperation and coordination between Member States;

504.   Considers that safeguarding the unity of the EU single market and the use of its economic and political leverage was made possible by the development of the external dimension of the EU’s operational autonomy through the EU-wide export authorisation mechanism; acknowledges, however, that medical countermeasures were not equitably distributed, which contributed, among other factors, to a striking contrast between vaccination rates in high-income and low-income countries;

505.   Considers that even with the considerable level of public funding for R&D for the rapid development of vaccines, manufacturing capacities in the EU were scaled up too slowly to match needs; stresses, therefore, that sharing IP and know-how within the legal framework is key in order to ensure large-scale productions and global availability of medical countermeasures; recalls, at the same time, that the complexity of vaccine manufacturing, and of procuring the raw materials and other components needed for the production, requires a global, sustainable and resilient supply chain; considers that no country can be fully autonomous in its vaccine production, resulting in a situation where the EU found it difficult to match its production capacity with the high demand for vaccines;

506.   Asks for tools to be set up allowing the Commission to implement reciprocal trade policies when needed (to counter the Defence Production Act, for example), and thereby maintain an equal balance of power and bargaining abilities;

507.   Emphasises that the EU played a major role in the global response and solidarity and must continue to play this role by putting more effort into it; considers that the EU must continue to lead vaccine solidarity around the world and reiterates that vaccine solidarity is part of the EU’s One Health approach; calls for the Member States to pay greater attention to planning, outside of pandemic times, coordinated efforts in regard to vaccine distribution;

508.   Underlines that the world is likely to face new epidemics and pandemics in the future and that the EU’s One Health approach entails being active in global preparedness, in particular regarding the achievement of the Green Deal objectives and targets, the respect of EU environmental law, the promotion of sustainable development, the urgent and necessary cut in CO 2 emissions and the loss of biodiversity, which are all factors driving pandemics and other public health threats, such as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats and zoonotic diseases, as well as the adoption of measures that contribute to the development of novel antimicrobial agents and to their availability and affordability; calls for the EU and the Member States to support and assist the global community in protecting intact ecosystems and ending the commercial trade in wildlife for human consumption;

509.   Underlines the need to ensure that EU trade policy contributes to EU resilience and open strategic autonomy, including through the use of the whole trade tool box; stresses that trade restrictions in times of crisis can lead to adverse effects, including for developing and neighbouring countries; is convinced that crisis preparedness is crucial to mitigating the adverse effects of supply chain disruptions in times of crisis; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission proposal for a single market emergency instrument which preserves the free movement of goods, services and persons and the availability of goods and services in the event of future emergencies, to the benefit of citizens and businesses across the EU;

510.   Calls on the Commission and the European External Action Service, in view of the likelihood of new epidemics and pandemics in the future and in the light of the various studies on the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, to set up a department for researching and monitoring the public health strategies of non-EU countries, especially those with considerable potential for cross-border spread;

  iv)   Global partnerships and foundations

511.   Notes the close cooperation between the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (Gavi), under the auspices of the WHO and UNICEF, leading to the creation of COVAX, which is aimed at accelerating the development and manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines and ensuring global, equitable access to vaccines; stresses that these initiatives need to be permanent and well-established under the umbrella of the UN system, with democratic control and scrutiny associated with it and by ensuring full transparency in their activities;

512.   Notes that Gavi designed and managed the COVAX Facility, COVAX’s global risk-sharing and pooled procurement mechanism, and secured doses for COVAX through advance purchase agreements and the COVAX dose-sharing mechanism, leading global procurement and delivery for COVAX; notes that CEPI used recoverable loans to secure doses on behalf of COVAX facilities; underlines the fact that while CEPI had some contingency funding solutions, it had to rely mostly on fundraising; underlines that although this system achieved positive results, sufficient resources need to be allocated to UN bodies and agencies in order to ensure that they do not rely solely on voluntary donations for the fulfilment of their mandate;

513.   Welcomes the fact that equitable access to vaccines has been the top priority of global foundations, including CEPI and Gavi, and that CEPI has been putting in practice the not-for-profit/no-loss principle for vaccines intended for low- and middle-income countries; notes, however, that most low-and middle-income countries have significantly lower immunisation rates than high-income countries; calls on the Commission and the Member States to advocate transparency and inclusion standards in international platforms and to update their access policies and conditions in order to optimise supply to low- and middle-income countries;

514.   Considers that while the donation of doses is positive, these donations have to be thoroughly planned to ensure that they make an optimal contribution to the needs, possibilities and requirements of recipients’ vaccination strategies; underlines that the Union should also take measures to ensure that vaccines remain effective, to support the capacity of national public health systems to deliver doses, to increase uptake of vaccines and to counter the misinformation that fuels vaccine hesitancy;

515.   Considers that sustainable vaccine development, production and delivery rely on robust and transparent supply chains; underlines, in this regard, the need for a wider distribution of manufacturing capacities throughout the world; calls on the Commission and the Member States to financially support increasing the local and regional production of vaccines and to encourage the transfer of knowledge and technologies and other essential health products in low- and middle-income countries;

516.   Calls for the establishment of a globally balanced production capacity which would be able to rapidly adapt to the production of any vaccine required; supports the efforts of the WHO-backed messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology-transfer hub and encourages the Commission and the Member States to keep on supporting such initiatives; considers the EU’s recent commitments to support health sovereignty in Africa and its EUR 1 billion investment in production capacity on that continent as important steps; notes, however, that the agreements lack clarity concerning technology and knowledge transfer, including IP and test data; calls for the further strengthening of cooperation between the EMA and the African Medicines Agency, international regulatory alignment through the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities and the close involvement of the WHO;

v)   Review of International Health Regulations and Pandemic Treaty

517.   Stresses that the response to COVID-19 must be holistic and that it cannot solely be focused on health, but must also take social and economic considerations into account at the global scale; notes that effective prevention of, preparedness for, and response to pandemics depends on the transparent and timely sharing of information, data and other elements at all levels; calls for enhanced coordination on prevention, preparedness and response, including vaccine distribution;

518.   Calls for the assessment of the current global health governance frameworks and welcomes, in this respect, the Pandemic Treaty; calls for the simultaneous strengthening of the obligations and enforceability of the IHR, while addressing the gaps (including funding, equity and global governance) through the new Pandemic Treaty; calls for the EU and the Member States to guarantee the inclusion of pandemic prevention in the treaty and to ensure that enabling the active participation of civil society and scientists is a priority in the negotiations;

519.   Welcomes the leading role of the EU in the discussions on the Pandemic Treaty; notes that the Pandemic Treaty has the potential to change how the global pharmaceuticals business operates in times of crisis; considers that the objectives of this legally binding treaty should be to promote and integrate the One Health approach, strengthen the resilience of our health systems, prevent and prepare for future pandemics, guarantee a coordinated and united response to crises, ensure universal and equitable access to tests, medicines and vaccines, fight effectively against disinformation that strongly undermines public health measures, incentivise, promote and develop innovation to respond to global public health threats and facilitate resilient global supply chains;

520.   Points out that stringency, accountability and transparency regarding international health regulations are prerequisites for coordination at the global scale; highlights that the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator demonstrated the importance of international collaboration, as it enabled a rapid response and unprecedented coordination among global health agencies to address the pandemic; emphasises the importance of evaluating and learning lessons from this initiative; notes that improving accessibility of medicines in low- and middle-income countries requires enhancing regulatory and manufacturing capacities and facilitating technology transfers and training, and commends Team Europe initiatives which contributed to these objectives;

vi)   IPR in the context of international relations

521.   Considers that Europe needs to find a constructive solution on IP protection which provides adequate certainty and incentives for investments in R&D, and should include licensing agreements in order to scale up production; notes long-standing concerns over intellectual property rights and access to affordable medicines in low- and middle-income countries and increasingly also in high-income countries; underlines the flexibilities in the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), confirmed by the Doha Declaration, as legitimate policy measures that governments can use to protect and promote public health by putting limits and safeguards on the enforcement of IP rights; calls on medical product developers to share their intellectual property, knowledge, and know-how through global initiatives such as the WHO’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP) in times of pandemics, epidemics and endemics; commends the efforts by the WHO to set up this instrument as a one-stop-shop for the development, licensing and manufacturing of health technologies; welcomes the support by Member States for this initiative and calls for the EU to encourage the private sector to contribute to it; underlines that lifting intellectual property barriers alone will not solve the problem of access, that patents are useless without technology transfer and proper industrial know-how and that export restrictions and access to raw materials were obstacles to the production of medical products; stresses, however, that sharing IP and know-how within the legal framework is key in order to ensure large-scale production and global availability of medical countermeasures during pandemics, epidemics and endemics;

522.   Underlines that compulsory licensing does not ensure that third party manufacturers in low- and middle-income countries can produce pharmaceuticals or equipment, as investment in regional and local capacities and infrastructure is also needed; notes that Team Europe is cooperating with African countries in this regard; highlights, in this regard, the need for innovative vaccines, treatments and diagnostics for new, prevalent or neglected infectious and non-communicable diseases and underlines that funding from Horizon Europe and the EU-Africa Global Health and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP3) has the potential for boosting research, capacity-building and strengthening of the regulatory environment in sub-Saharan Africa; notes that these partnerships work in cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry and that an enabling environment is necessary to continue to develop and improve vaccines and medications for current challenges and pandemics to come;

523.   Recalls that Article 66(2) of the TRIPS agreement requires developed country members to ‘provide incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least developed country members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base’ and calls on the Commission and the Member States to deliver on this requirement with priority; reiterates the European Parliament’s support for the TRIPS waiver (IP/C/W/669) as originally proposed at the WTO [56] ; encourages the Commission to work with other WTO members to extend the MC12 TRIPS decision to therapeutics and diagnostics;

524.   Believes that many, especially developing, countries face difficulties in the use of TRIPS flexibilities, notably Article 31 bis;

525.   Recalls that the EU should actively participate in text-based negotiations on a temporary TRIPS waiver;

526.   Calls, in that regard, for the EU to support the granting of a temporary waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS agreement for COVID-19, in order to enhance timely global access to affordable COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics by addressing global production constraints and supply shortages;

527.   Calls for the establishment of a new permanent committee on trade and health at MC12 in order to assist governments with implementing current exceptions and flexibilities in international trade law and to lay the groundwork for a trade pillar for the negotiations on a future international treaty on pandemic response;

528.   Underlines the need to help Africa produce for Africa to make Africa less dependent on other parts of the world;

b)   The EU’s role in vaccine access

i)   Provision and oversight of equitable access to vaccines and medical products to third countries

529.   Observes that countries cannot fight a global emergency alone and international cooperation coordination, particularly through multilateral organisations such as the UN, is key; draws particular attention, in that context, to the important contribution to the global fight against COVID-19 made by the discovery of the Omicron variant; notes that at the peak of the pandemic, competition and restrictive measures between countries on access to medical devices, personal protective equipment, screening and vaccines led to production being disrupted and higher prices, and that it is therefore essential that countries producing these medical products have the political will to encourage governments to collectively ensure that supply chains remain open;

530.   Believes that health is of a geopolitical strategic value, as well as a human right, and that Europe has the potential to be a global leader in this domain; urges the EU and the Member States to respond to pandemics on the basis of a rights-based ethical approach and to respect the protection of medical facilities in the event of conflict (UNSC 2286) and not to restrict freedom of movement (Siracusa Principles); calls for the EU and the Member States to ensure that independent humanitarian actors can access tools such as the Humanitarian Buffer in order to serve those who are left out or who cannot be reached by governments, for example in conflict settings;

531.   Urges Europe to ensure the safety of its citizens at all times in an autonomous way and in coordination with our traditional allies through mutual support;

532.   Notes that many low- and middle-income countries across the world had trouble accessing medical materials such as medication, protective equipment and vaccine doses due to several factors, including a lack of supply, especially at the beginning of the crisis;

533.   Underlines that the EU had a major role in global vaccination, was home to three out of the first four safe and effective vaccines and was the first producer and exporter of mRNA vaccines; emphasises that this would have been impossible without ambitious public funding and stresses the public responsibilities deriving from this for private stakeholders;

534.   Considers that the EU has an excessive number of vaccines in relation to need, which is a sufficient amount for continuing to share with countries that expressly request them in the event of a new surge;

535.   Considers that export restrictions and access to raw materials are some of the more serious obstacles to production, together with IP protection and lack of access to manufacturing know-how;

536.   Calls on the Commission to engage with vaccine-producing countries to rapidly eliminate export barriers and to replace its own export authorisation mechanism with export transparency requirements, and insists on receiving timely and comprehensive access to such data;

537.   Underlines that the global response to health emergencies should encompass, on the one hand, a needs-oriented ‘demand-side’ approach providing joint financing and globally coordinated advance purchases and, on the other hand, an integrated ‘supply-side’ strategy for scaling up production capacity across the whole value chain; considers that increased global vaccine production, better coordination of supplies and strengthened, diversified and resilient value chains for vaccines are necessary for vaccines to be distributed globally; underlines that, in the long term, global production of vaccines must urgently be expanded to meet global demand, and that investment in the production capabilities of low- and middle-income countries is therefore needed to make them more self-sufficient; points out the need for the effective transfer of technology and know-how to make this happen; recognises that voluntary licensing agreements and voluntary technology for countries with pre-existing vaccine-producing industries should be the most important way to achieve this and calls on the Commission and like-minded countries to act in this respect;

538.   Calls for an urgent increase in international investment and coordination for the scaling up of the production of critical vaccine inputs such as disposables and active pharmaceutical ingredients in order to solve bottlenecks across vaccine value chains;

ii)   The role of the EU in ensuring that vaccines and medical supplies were affordable and available to third countries (preventing potential bottlenecks in supply chains, trade barriers, etc.)

539.   Recalls that the EU pooled its resources to maximise the impact of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic and that since the outbreak of the pandemic, the EU institutions, Member States and European financial institutions, as well as Team Europe, have so far committed EUR 53.7 billion to support 140 countries, covering the emergency response to humanitarian needs, strengthening of health, water and sanitation systems, and mitigation of the social and economic consequences of the pandemic;

540.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to strengthen their relations with low- and middle-income countries, particularly in the field of prevention and monitoring of emerging health threats; calls for continued support for health systems, pandemic preparedness and local medicine and vaccine manufacturing in low- and middle-income countries; highlights that the crisis has dramatically increased the vulnerability of women and girls, with an estimated 110 million girls at risk of early marriage by 2030, an additional 10 million of whom are at risk due to the financial hardship caused by the pandemic;

541.   Calls for more efforts to facilitate easy and affordable access to vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and healthcare in low- and middle-income countries by actively supporting an environment that allows capacities for local vaccine manufacturing to be established, preparedness to be strengthened, local health professionals to be trained and response capacities to be scaled up, while enabling countries with fragile healthcare systems to access medical equipment and supplies; welcomes, in this regard, Global Gateway flagship programmes in health manufacturing and access to vaccines, medicines and health technology products in Senegal, Rwanda, Ghana and South Africa; acknowledges the key role of African laboratories, especially in South Africa, in the sequencing of the omicron variant of COVID-19; calls, therefore, on the EU and international organisations to further deepen scientific collaboration with Africa; highlights the establishment of the WHO mRNA vaccines;

542.   Underlines that open strategic autonomy in the health sector, based on the development of research capacities in the Member States, support for local EU production capacities and regulatory harmonisation, is a potential tool to enhance the EU’s pharmaceutical ecosystem and improve the flow of trade in medicines, vaccines, medical devices and other essential goods in times of crisis;

543.   Highlights that many EU Member States encountered difficulties when donating dose surpluses to the Global South, due to, on the one hand, conditions imposed by pharmaceutical companies in the vaccine contracts, and, on the other hand, the lack of demand from Global South countries, while at the same time the interest in vaccine doses was diminishing; notes that recipient countries also experienced problems in absorbing donations due to the short shelf life of the vaccines; notes that better communication between the Union and the governments concerned on this subject is necessary;

544.   Underlines that AMR may be the next global health crisis and that there is consequently a need for accelerated implementation of the current action plans and specific global mechanisms for AMR surveillance, research and innovation and antimicrobial stewardship; highlights the need to support the development of novel antimicrobial agents, as well as to ensure their availability and affordability;

545.   Considers that the EU should be a major developer, producer and exporter of medical products in the context of strong international competition;

546.   Highlights the need to focus particularly on funding the development of medical countermeasures and treatments to cope with international competition; points out, in this regard, the role of public-private partnerships; acknowledges the successful cooperation between European and US companies and laboratories in the development of mRNA vaccines;

c)   Conclusions

547.   Welcomes the establishment of the World Bank Financial Intermediary Fund for Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPR), or the Pandemic Fund; calls for targeted funding to fill critical gaps in PPR capacities, in line with its mandate, starting with surveillance gaps and emergency workforce training;

548.   Highlights that without co-responsibility being assumed by beneficiaries, for example in investing in their primary health systems, medical countermeasures will not reach the population; encourages low- and middle-income countries to implement the target set in the 2001 African Union Abuja Declaration on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Other Related Infectious Diseases to allocate ‘at least 15 % of [the] annual budget to the improvement of the health sector’ while taking account of the necessary fiscal space; recalls the role played by the EU in promoting and supporting global access to vaccines, such as, for example, the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator and COVAX;

549.   Underlines the benefits of fair and predictable IP protection in fostering and advancing medicinal research, production and development; highlights the public importance of promoting the sharing of IP and know-how of medical countermeasures, in particular during pandemics, epidemics and endemics; stresses that this must not preclude the use of TRIPS flexibility when necessary and as provided by the TRIPS agreement; recognises the importance for the EU to stay in the lead on R&D and clinical trials and underlines the importance of revitalising R&D activities within the EU to create job opportunities and enhance global competitiveness; stresses that intellectual property protection can be an incentive for innovation and research across the globe; notes that such protection can be the basis for voluntary licensing agreements and know-how transfer and can therefore be an enabler of vaccine availability; underlines the challenges that an indefinite TRIPS agreement waiver could pose to research finance, in particular for researchers, investors, developers and clinical trials; emphasises that the protection of property rights, including intellectual property rights, is a constitutional obligation of the European Union and its Member States; underlines, in this regard, the importance of transparency and welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a directive relating to medicinal products for human use, which suggests that any direct financial support received from any public authority or publicly funded body in relation to any activities or the research and development of the medicinal product must be declared; highlights the need to strike the right balance between spurring innovation and providing access to affordable medicine products; calls for the need to support innovation models that provide access to affordable medicine products in all Member States, without creating serious barriers to access and affordability; calls on the Commission to support global initiatives that facilitate IP sharing such as the COVID-19 technology access pool;

550.   Highlights that the existing Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights already offers a framework for compulsory licensing, allowing governments to provide their citizens with generic versions of patented treatments through domestic production or foreign imports; acknowledges the potential value of compulsory licensing during pandemics, epidemics and endemics while at the same time recognising its potential negative impacts, such as undermining the certainty of IP protection for future innovation, and highlights the positive role of voluntary licensing agreements in increasing production and access to COVID-19 vaccines, but regrets the limited use of this tool; recalls that 138 voluntary licensing agreements, and partnerships with multilateral organisations, have contributed to worldwide access to COVID-19 therapeutics through means other than TRIPs waivers; urges the Commission and the Member States to prioritise fulfilling the requirement in Article 66(2) of the TRIPS agreement, which mandates developed country members to provide incentives for promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least-developed country members, enabling them to establish a sound and viable technological base;

551   Acknowledges that COVID-19 was an exceptional circumstance, which required exceptional solutions, such as a temporary waiver of the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as well as prioritising the availability and affordability of pandemic-related health products; believes that many, especially developing, countries face difficulties in the use of TRIPS flexibilities, notably Article 31 bis;

552.   Recalls that the EU should actively participate in text-based negotiations on a temporary TRIPS waiver; calls, in that regard, for the EU to support the granting of a temporary waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS agreement for COVID-19, in order to enhance timely global access to affordable COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics by addressing global production constraints and supply shortages;

553.   Believes that similar measures would be beneficial in the event of potential future pandemics, epidemics and endemics. Underlines that, in the long term, global production of vaccines must urgently be expanded to meet global demand, and that investment in the production capabilities of low- and middle-income countries is therefore needed to make them more self-sufficient; points out the need for effective transfer of technology and know-how to make this happen; recognises that incentivising voluntary licensing agreements and voluntary technology and know-how transfer to countries with pre-existing vaccine-producing industries should be the most important way to achieve this; considers that a multilateral IPR legal framework can provide protections and incentives which are critical for preparedness against future pandemics and recognises its role in facilitating the broad and unprecedented collaboration among governments, research institutions and pharmaceutical companies;

554.   Calls for the establishment of a new permanent Committee on Trade and Health at MC12 in order to assist governments with implementing existing exceptions and flexibilities in international trade law and to lay the groundwork for a trade pillar for the negotiations on a future international treaty on pandemic response;

Final recommendations

555.   Recommends that the EU implement a holistic approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, so that it continues to be a global driving force in this respect and in line with the G20 Rome Declaration and the internationally agreed principles for action to fight, prepare for, prevent and respond to pandemics;

556.   Calls for the European Union to establish a European day of remembrance for the victims of COVID-19;

i)   Prevention capacity

557.   Recommends the establishment of cross-sectoral health promotion and prevention programmes to reduce health risk factors and promote healthy lifestyles, and a European cross-sectoral preventive-health approach in all policies integrating agriculture and food production, environment, transport, the energy sector, industrial development, education and social services, so as to enable greater exchange of knowledge and information, promote best practices, facilitate sustainable economies of scale and unlock innovation potential to be better prepared for and respond to any threat to European citizens’ health; stresses that such programmes should be developed within cross-sectoral platforms, including public authorities at national, regional and local level, as well as civil society organisations;

558.   Calls on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to further reinforce and strengthen their commitment to address the global climate crisis, further enhance their action to promote sustainable development, protect the environment, reduce emissions and prevent further loss of biodiversity, as these are decisive policies and approaches for preventing future pandemics;

559.   Calls on the Commission and the ECDC to introduce surveillance plans on emerging health threats, including coordinated and systematic data collection and operational and behavioural research, and to carry out risk assessments on the drivers, processes and pathways for zoonotic disease emergence, spread and persistence, as well as to characterise intact, resilient and healthy ecosystems and their effect on disease prevention, including wildlife surveillance, pathogens identification and supporting Member States in implementation;

560.   Calls on the Commission to conduct economic analyses to quantify the costs and benefits of preventive interventions to respond to the risk from emerging zoonotic diseases and use the results to advocate sustainable financing in these interventions;

561.   Calls for the establishment of a European cross-agency One Health task force to advance transdisciplinary research and cross-sectoral scientific advice;

562.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to advocate, in the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, building collaborative predictive epidemic intelligence systems (at national, regional and global level) in order to identify high-risk interfaces and hotspots for spillover, incorporating relevant environmental and climate data and data on the establishment of reservoirs and vector species in new geographic areas;

563.   Recommends moving forward towards a proper European Health Union with a view to reinforcing the resilience and quality of the healthcare systems in the Member States, tackling health inequalities in the EU, establishing a solid mechanism for joint procurement with clear guidelines on transparency and democratic accountability, and developing robust pandemic preparedness planning and a more integrated surveillance system by investing in data collection, digitalisation, sharing and analysis, implementing the European Health Data Space, which will offer interoperability and harmonisation of health data across the Member States, while respecting the protection of privacy and personal data;

564.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to ensure, in the future, joint procurement contracts so that manufacturers remain liable in line with EU product liability legislation;

565.   Recommends the setting up of instruments and funding programmes in the health domain to fight cyber threats, hybrid attacks, external state-sponsored propaganda and foreign interference;

566.   Calls on the Member States to conduct an evidence-based gender and diversity analysis of the measures adopted in response to the pandemic and review documentation of the gender- and diversity-specific human rights impacts of the emergency measures to inform preparedness and response plans for future emergencies; recommends providing opportunities for associations, especially women’s groups and organisations representing the interests of under-represented persons or groups, to participate in the proposal, design, approval, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of responses to public health emergencies;

567.   Recommends that in future crises services should be arranged through hotlines to provide support to people unable to care for themselves; recommends that all available measures be advertised widely and be accessible in languages that will reach the entire population;

ii)   Preparedness

568.   Calls on the Commission to propose actions and instruments, as well as on the Member States to invest more in healthcare, including via the use of RRF and cohesion funding in order to reduce healthcare disparities, strengthen national public health and social care systems and enhance cross-border health cooperation in order to tackle serious threats to health and safety in the EU;

569.   Calls for own legislative initiatives under Article 225 TFEU in order to increase EU competence in health, to improve its strategic open autonomy, to improve the resilience and quality of healthcare systems and services, to ensure equal, universal and affordable medical care and to foster transparency on public funding for health research and governance;

570.   Requests the Commission to submit appropriate regulatory and/or legislative measures for health security in line with recommendations from the Conference on the Future of Europe aiming to:

- pursue reliable, sustainable and continuous access to active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) as critical raw materials, so to avoid any possible disruption in the pharmaceutical supply chain, prevent shortages of medicines and contribute to the Open Strategic Autonomy of the EU in health;

- further enhance Member States’ health systems to protect them from cyber threats;

- make sure that the Member States have a sufficient number of well-equipped and trained healthcare professionals available, as well as to keep the best researchers employed in Europe through the establishment of talent retention policies;

- make the European Union more attractive for global investments in health R&D;

- keep abreast of the very fast scientific advancements in new medicinal products and treatments, as well as in health technologies;

- promote the reindustrialisation of the health sector in the EU, in accordance with the digital and green transition;

571.   Calls for the full implementation and mainstreaming of the ‘health in all policies’ approach embedded in the Helsinki Statement, by adopting a cross-sectoral approach to public policy that systematically considers the health impact of decisions, promotes synergies and avoids adverse health effects in order to improve population health and health equity;

572.   Recommends addressing the digital divide, which particularly affects marginalised population groups, promoting digital literacy and improving access to the internet and hardware in order to better enable access to education, public services and healthcare;

573.   Calls for the role of the European Parliament to be enhanced in the decision-making process during crisis management and for parliamentary control and oversight on instruments created in response to emergencies to be strengthened in order to improve their legitimacy;

574.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to cooperate with social media platforms to effectively counter misinformation and disinformation in order to avoid conflicting messages being sent to specific target groups, which can eventually result in vaccine hesitancy;

575.   Calls on the Commission to exercise close scrutiny of any potential national measures regarding internal border controls during health crises and to ensure that such internal border control comply with the Schengen legislation and is a measure of last resort, proportionate and of limited duration; emphasises that all internal border controls and restrictions of movement must be exceptional, and that in the event of future health crises any possible travel restrictions need to be grounded in the principles of equity and inclusion; encourages harmonising possible future travel restrictions at EU level through an EU legislative procedure with a coordinated approach instead of non-binding Council and Commission recommendations;

576.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide support for media literacy training among the EU population as a counter measure against disinformation; notes that support for media pluralism is also important and highlights the need to further build on the legal frameworks that exist; stresses the need to invest in training journalists and public scientists with knowledge of crisis communication;

577.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to form a unified strategic approach to non-EU actors attempting to disrupt democratic processes in the EU during health or other crises;

578.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue providing long-term financial and technical support for a distributed, highly global, adaptable production capacity that can enable a rapid and even distribution of vaccines doses (and other tools) in a potential future pandemic;

579.   Calls for similar support for existing R&D capacities in different regions, in particular funding from Horizon Europe, the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2, EDCTP and HERA;

580.   Calls on the Commission to create structures and partnerships that facilitate the prioritisation of health sector research and the sharing of results;

581.   Calls on the Commission to conduct a pilot study on leveraging public investments in health research and development in the EU to ensure better access to affordable end products;

582.   Calls for the European Pillar of Social Rights to be channelled to change the lives of millions of socially excluded people in the EU, especially those at a higher risk of poverty and inaccessibility to quality healthcare;

iii)   Resilience

583.   Is of the opinion that a European Union of Health is needed, that current NextGenerationEU funds should contribute to it and that Parliament should have a role in decision-making for these health programmes; believes, furthermore, that the necessary instruments should be deployed to enable the climate and digital transition; recommends that this transition be promoted by accelerating the shift to a climate-neutral economy while mitigating the transition challenges by reskilling and upskilling the European labour force, by incorporating the need for certain investments while maintaining sound public finances in the upcoming review of the Stability and Growth Pact, and by enhancing access to finance for innovative, green and digital technology firms and businesses, especially SMEs;

584.   Recommends strengthening the institutional capacity of the Commission;

585.   Looks forward to working with the Commission on the revision of the EU general pharmaceuticals legislation, which should continue to adequately protect IP in order to create an innovation-friendly and competitive environment in the Union and to improve equitable access to safe, effective and affordable medicines;

586.   Calls on the Commission to use the industrial, IP and pharmaceutical strategies to encourage public funding of research and development projects in order to adhere to the principle of open science and bridge the persistent gap in research and medicine production through product-development partnerships, technology transfer and the creation of open centres for research;

587.   Calls on the Member States to introduce stress tests to strengthen the resilience and quality of their healthcare systems and services, based on the outcomes and the training handbook being developed by EU4Health-funded projects in cooperation with the OECD; calls on the Member States to invest in emergency surge capacity and in healthcare and care personnel and improve their working conditions and financial compensation in order to combat workforce shortages;

588.   Welcomes Regulation (EU) 2022/2371 on serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 1082/2013/EU, which represents a step towards a ‘European Union of Health’ with the adaptation of EU competences in the area of health security and a reinforced role of the European Parliament in the decision‐making process under crisis management;

589.   Recommends that the ECDC be given more independence in terms of information-gathering and that a systematic obligation be put in place for Member States to send the ECDC comprehensible and comparative data, in particular on equipment stocks, bed capacities and intensive care unit admissions, vaccination rates and workforce availability;

590.   Calls on the Commission to take stock of the practices and methods implemented by the European Parliament, as well as national parliaments, to ensure that parliamentary democracy and the rule of law are not put on hold during crises; recommends that the Commission develop, at European level, a list of parliamentary best practices to follow in times of crisis, based on a stocktaking of new parliamentary working methods and mechanisms;

591.   Calls for the EU institutions and the Member States to preserve the principles of good policymaking, respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law, including in times of crisis; reiterates that power can only be exercised within the constraints set out by law and that any interventions made must be justifiable, proportionate, non-discriminatory, predictable and subject to monitoring by independent and impartial courts;

592.   Calls for a revision of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making [57] with a view to increasing the role of Parliament in the decision-making process during crisis management, including the use of Article 122 TFEU and in particular for empowering the European Parliament to propose new legislation for emergency response actions, and to enhancing the ordinary legislative procedure for the various instruments for emergency response actions, so as to bolster the legitimacy of emergency response actions and therefore to enhancing democratic legitimacy and parliamentary oversight;

593.   Calls on the Commission to update its practical border handbook with examples of good practices for internal border management in order to increase coordination among the Member States, after a comprehensive review of the measures imposed for internal border control during the pandemic and their impact;

iv)   Open Strategic Autonomy

594.   Stresses the importance of the functioning of the single market, in particular with regard to the supply of products in the event of health threats; recommends tackling market failures in health and completing the single market for health products;

595.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to reduce their dependence on non-EU country trade partners as regards API, raw materials, key medicines and medical devices in order to ensure open strategic autonomy at EU level; reaffirms its belief that the EU needs to improve the resilience of the pharmaceutical supply chains and to build its open strategic autonomy in the pharmaceutical sector by diversifying production and supply chains, promoting strategic stockpiling and increasing production and investment in Europe;

596.   Stresses the importance of producing critical equipment and medicines in the EU and in investing in and supporting local production capacities, and calls for diversification in suppliers and for the consideration of the contribution that SMEs can make in this regard;

597.   Recommends that the EU and the Member States encourage better data sharing on supply and demand forecasts between relevant stakeholders, earlier projections on potential shortages, including regular standardised reporting from the industry, and greater transparency in the production and distribution chain;

598.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to contribute to the implementation of the 2019 WHO resolution on improving the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines, and other health products [58] ;

599.   Calls for a list of essential, priority and innovative medicines and treatments based on critical medicinal products relying on existing European agencies and HERA to be established at EU level in order to guarantee their availability for citizens;

600.   Notes that during the pandemic the EU rapidly mobilised emergency funding under Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe to speed up research for a cure for COVID-19; notes that Member States also mobilised funding to study potential treatments for COVID-19, but that this resulted in many small-scale, underpowered clinical trials that did not yield actionable results; stresses that for Europe to secure open strategic autonomy, the EU and the Member States need to invest in research and innovation and must better coordinate this investment in order to respond more effectively to pandemics; highlights the need to maximise public return by making funding conditional upon the availability and affordability of medicines and other health technologies, thereby allowing the EU to foster its strategic autonomy;

601.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to create a large-scale, mission-oriented, public European health R&D infrastructure which operates in the public interest to manufacture medicinal products of health and strategic importance for healthcare, in the absence of existing industrial production, in order to support the EU to overcome market failure, guarantee security of supply and prevent possible shortages of medicines, while contributing to greater preparedness for facing new health threats and emergencies;

602.   Calls for the organisation of coordinated EU-wide strategic stockpiling limited to essential and priority products in order to achieve the necessary coordinated, long-term action at EU level, and for including health and healthcare among the shared competencies between the EU and the EU Member States by amending Article 4 TFEU;

603.   Stresses the importance of the outcomes of the Conference on the Future of Europe, with specific regard to the recommendations to grant greater competence to the EU in the area of public health and in building a strong EU response to future health crises;

604.   Calls on the Council to launch a convention for modifying the Treaties, based on the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe and the European Parliament resolution that activated Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU);

605.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to advocate, in the WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness Treaty, a global commitment that aims to ensure sufficient financing for biomedical R&D and an enforceable and effective access and benefit-sharing mechanism and to create conditions for licensing government-funded R&D, to encourage technology transfer, to share the intellectual property, data and knowledge needed for the production and supply of products and to streamline regulatory standards and procedures for the marketing of medical countermeasures;

606.   Calls for an assessment of the current global health governance frameworks and welcomes, in this respect, the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty;

607.   Calls for the simultaneous strengthening of the obligations and enforceability of the IHR and addressing of the gaps (including in funding, equity and global governance) through the new Pandemic Treaty;

608.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to ensure the prevention of pandemics and enable the active participation of civil society and scientists, which should be priorities in the negotiations; considers that the objectives of the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty should be to promote and integrate the One Health approach, strengthen the resilience of our health systems, prevent and prepare for future pandemics, guarantee a coordinated and united response to crises, ensure universal and equitable access to tests, medicines and vaccines, fight effectively against disinformation that strongly undermines public health measures and incentivise, promote and develop innovation to respond to global public health threats and facilitate resilient global supply chains;

609.   Calls for the creation of an effective mechanism governing strategic international stockpiles with ensured access for humanitarian actors in order to address the needs of vulnerable populations in countries with fragile health systems and in conflict settings;

610.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish joint guidelines and best practices for vaccine donations based on the experience and challenges experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic;

611.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to address the lack of production capacities and of technology transfers towards low-and middle- income countries and to establish a global mechanism to enhance production capacities both within the EU and on a global scale;

612.   Calls for the Member States to pay greater attention to planning, outside of pandemic times, coordinated efforts in regard to vaccine distribution;

613.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to financially support increasing the local and regional production of vaccines and to encourage the transfer of knowledge and technologies and other essential health products in low- and middle-income countries;

614.   Calls for the EU and the Member States to strengthen their relations with low- and middle-income countries, particularly as regards prevention and monitoring for emerging health threats; calls for continued support to health systems, pandemic preparedness and local medicine and vaccine manufacturing in low- and middle-income countries; calls for increased efforts to facilitate easy and affordable access to vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and healthcare in low- and middle-income countries;

615.   Underlines the need to further reinforce cooperation between the EU and the WHO in response to the pandemic with a more coordinated, long-term view and with a stronger, well-funded and independent UN system at the centre; calls for the European Union to take a more strategic, assertive and effective role in global health; stresses the need for the EU to assume the role of formal observer at the WHO; recommends the allocation of sufficient resources to UN bodies and agencies in order to ensure that they do not rely solely on voluntary donations for the fulfilment of their mandate;

616.   Calls for the further strengthening of cooperation between the EMA and the African Medicines Agency, for international regulatory alignment through the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities and for the close involvement of the WHO; emphasises that cross-border health threats require an international response; recommends that HERA, along with other Commission directorates, be equipped with legal and financial options for encouraging full technology transfers, including to producers in low- and middle-income countries;

617.   Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Committee of the Regions, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the World Health Organization and the Word Trade Organization.

The COVID-19 crisis has pushed health higher on the agenda of the European Union, but also on the list of top concerns of our citizens. In response to the consequences of the pandemic, the European Parliament decided to set up a Special Committee on Covid-19, in a bid to assess the European Union's response to the pandemic, drawing conclusions and put in place recommendations for the future.

The mandate of the committee included monitoring the implementation of measures taken by the EU and its Member States in response to the pandemic, and evaluating their effectiveness. The committee was also responsible for identifying any gaps or weaknesses in the response to the crisis and make specific and targeted recommendations to address them.

On 10 March 2022, the Committee was established. It had 38 Members and met for fifteen months. It made use of various methods to analyse the impact and the response to the pandemic. In twelve months, it held 17 hearings with more than 70 experts, 8 EC Commissioners, along with EU and the rest of the World governments’ authorities, requested documents, commissioned studies and undertook 6 missions.

The final aim was to submit this report, taking a hard and honest look at the lessons learned from the crisis and make proposals for improving the EU's crisis management and preparedness for future emergencies.

This report reflects the mandate architecture, trying to gauge the impact of the pandemic according to four pillars: (1) Health; (2) A coordinated approach with respect for democracy and fundamental rights; (3) Societal and economic impact; and (4) the EU and the World.

The EU, as well as the rest of the world, was not ready to cope with this unprecedented health crisis and its shock waves, affected societies and economies worldwide. The rapporteur highlights that especially at the beginning of the pandemic, everybody made mistakes, but that it was an unprecedented situation. After a slow start, the European Union reacted with all the instruments at its disposal, and it is clear that its leadership, especially in trying to advance the search for and development of vaccines, while at the same time coordinating health, economic and social measures, has been crucial in saving millions of lives in the EU and beyond.

The development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines and the EU Vaccines Strategy constituted a game-changer in the pandemic. Nevertheless, the rapporteur calls for improving the transparency of the development, production and procurement of vaccines, as well as the ability to negotiate more favourable conditions in future contracts with pharmaceutical companies.

The EU is now in a position to learn from the mistakes made. By doing this, it can better prepare itself so that it can effectively respond to future pandemics.   This will also help the EU lead in planning and implementing recovery strategies while building a stronger, more effective global partnership against future Health emergencies.

The rapporteur put forward a number of recommendations to the European Commission and Member States in view of building a holistic and robust EU pandemic preparedness and response plan. A strong European Health Union is essential to strengthen our health systems and cope with future health crises.

Europe is leading the world in the fight against climate change and caring for the planet, and it is now, after COVID-19, that the opportunity arises to make Europe and its national public health systems that provide universal access to its citizens, world leaders in health care. Chief among the areas explored, there is the need to set up innovative cross-sectoral primary prevention programmes, more investment in data collection, digitalisation, sharing and analysis, addressing the digital divide, reinforcing the role of the European Parliament in the decision-making process, countering misinformation and disinformation, strengthening the institutional capacity of the European Commission, and completing the single market for health products.

There is even a call for the revision of the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law Making. This highlights the vastness of the implications of the recommendations set out in the report. Indeed, some of them call for significant policy changes.

This would require the European Parliament, under its own legislative initiative (Article 225 TFEU), to promote a European Union of Health, to improve the resilience and quality of healthcare systems, to ensure equal, universal, affordable medical care, while ensuring transparency of public funding for health research and governance. Never have research and innovation been more important than today. A thriving and technically advanced European healthcare industry and a competitive research community is vital. This requires an ambitious, clear and up-to-date regulatory framework and an incentives system for European companies, as well as dedicated resources for science and health research.

The EU needs to maintain a strong European intellectual property system to encourage R&D and manufacturing in the EU Health sector and to ensure that Europe remains innovative and a world leader, while supporting third countries to improve their technical expertise and manufacturing capacities.

The rapporteur underlines the necessity of completing the single market for health products. The European Commission has to tackle market failures in health and continue in its efforts to develop a single market for health products.

The single market gives Europeans the right to move freely within it but these rights were severely restricted while trying to reduce the spread of the pandemic. In this context, the EU added value of COVID-19 response is exemplified by the provision of “Green Lanes” approach and the EU Digital COVID Certificate to maintain not only the integrity of the single market, but also the respect of the free movement of people, goods and services while observing   pandemic rules.   Nevertheless, it will be the duty of the European Commission to exercise scrutiny of internal border controls, and to provide more concrete guidance on the implementation of internal border controls. Members States must provide sufficient evidence that the controls are measures of last resort, proportionate and of limited duration.

The medical emergency affected the security and stability of social and economic conditions, influencing, in particular, the life of vulnerable people, including people with disabilities and chronically ill (for e.g. cancer) patients, with consequences linked to delays and disruption to diagnostics and treatments. The mental health of healthcare workers, children and elderly people has been particularly affected and we do not completely know yet the consequences of this impact. This cannot be allowed to happen again.

At the national level, the rapporteur calls for the introduction of stress tests to strengthen the healthcare systems and their resilience and quality. This should be done based on the training handbook being developed by EU4Health funded projects, in cooperation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The rapporteur stresses the importance of creating more quality jobs along the entire healthcare sector, and investing in continuous education and training for the health workforce in the European Union, while facilitating talent retention and mobility at EU level, with the support of NextGenerationEU.

The rapporteur has also shed a light on parliamentary control and oversight in the report. She insists that the European Parliament must not continue to be sidelined in the EU decision-making process under crisis management. The parliamentary control and oversight on several EU instruments must be reinforced, in order to improve the legitimacy and credibility of emergency response actions.

The multiple challenges currently facing the EU show the need for ensuring the EU strategic autonomy in Health, as well as in general. In the context of the pandemic, the rapporteur underlines that the EU needs to find permanent solutions to avoid dependency on third countries for medicines, in particular active ingredients and medical devices. The role of HERA will be crucial. The EU needs to increase its production capacity by encouraging its industry, but by also diversifying its supply chain and ensuring better coordination of national health strategies.

It is necessary to safeguard the transparency of production and supply chains in the event of a health crisis.

The rapporteur calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote more joint European public procurement as has been done for Covid-19 vaccines and innovative procurement procedures incorporating criteria such as: 'Made in Europe', timely delivery, organic production, security and continuity of supply.

One other challenge is the scourge of misinformation and disinformation. There is no doubt that third parties attempted to destabilize the Union through misinformation and disinformation campaigns. The EU needs to be better protected against these threats.

Nowadays the vast majority of the population uses social media to consume news and receive information. Yet there is still a sizeable minority, which does not have access to the internet. In order to bridge the digital gap, the EU must give due attention to the marginalised groups of people, and to improve their access to the internet, particularly in view of access to education, public services, and healthcare.

Nevertheless, the mammoth task of going digital does not come without a cost. Cyber-attacks on hospitals and health systems, together with other critical infrastructure have become almost a weekly occurrence in several parts of Europe. The rapporteur calls on the Commission and Member States to form a unified strategic approach and to set up instruments and funding programmes to fight cyber threats, cyber-terrorism and external state-sponsored propaganda, because it is clear that, these also fuel vaccine hesitancy. Moreover, the EU ought to cooperate with digital platforms in order to effectively counter-misinformation and disinformation.

Finally and most importantly, the rapporteur calls for the swift implementation of a holistic approach to pandemic prevention and response. The EU should adopt the G20 Rome Declaration and establish innovative cross-sectoral primary prevention programmes to reduce risk factors and promote healthy lifestyles. The EU has to make sure that its policies across a whole range of sectors are also preventive-health policies, integrating a One Health and Health-in-all-policies approach, throughout agriculture and food production, transport, the energy sector, industrial development, education and social services, while investing in data collection, digitalisation, sharing and analysis.

In conclusion, the rapporteur would like the report to be considered as a key document in the event of future health emergency crises, providing solid guidance based on the lessons learned from a real pandemic. The rapporteur recommends capitalising on it by taking forward actions from the report, which will help build a European Union of Health, a much more resilient European economy and society, able to face any threat not only to health, but also to security, while protecting the welfare and lifestyle model of European citizens.

A pandemic knows no frontiers, and no one country can face it alone. Europe will only be able to pull through future pandemics and can only continue to be a leader in the global cooperation of health emergencies if the European family stands together in solidarity and responsibility, and fully utilises its capabilities to better coordinate and deliver its added value to EU governments and their citizens.

The findings of this report point to the need for a stronger political will among national governments when communicating and working together under the coordination of the European Commission and the Parliament. If the EU wants to withstand the onslaught of the next pandemic, it has to be prepared with financial investments, new legal instruments, and a more cohesive cooperation among the Member States, European institutions, and the international organizations.

T he following list is d rawn u p o n a p u rely vo l un ta r y b asis und er t h e e xcl u si v e r es p o n si b ili t y o f t h e ra ppo rte u r. T h e ra pp o r te u r has received input from t h e f o l l o wi n g e n tities o r p er s o n s in t h e p re p arati o n o f t he [ draft re p o rt / report, until the adoption thereof in committee]:

Tuesday, 19 April pm (constitutive)

  Election of the Chair; Election of the first Vice-Chair; Election of the second Vice-Chair; Election of the third Vice-Chair; Election of the fourth Vice-Chair

Thursday, 12 May am

  Exchange of views with Stella Kyriakides - Commissioner for Health and Food Safety

Week 21 - Ad hoc delegation to WHO, Geneva, Switzerland - COVI Chair

Monday, 20 June 2022 pm

  Exchange of views with Thierry Breton - Commissioner for Internal Market

Tuesday, 21 June 2022 am/pm

  Exchange of views with Věra Jourová, Vice-President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency

  Exchange of views with European Commission representatives on COVI related issues on the outcome of the 12th ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (MC12)

Wednesday, 13 July 2022 am/pm

  Exchange of views with Dr Andrea Ammon, Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) *

  Exchange of views with Mr Pierre Delsaux, Director-General of the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) on COVID-19 pandemic *

Report on ongoing inter-institutional negotiations *

  Information on the outcome of the inter-institutional negotiations on the Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on serious cross-border threats to health, repealing Decision No 1082/2013/EU ( COM(2020)0727 ) - Rapporteur: Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew Europe)

Exchange of views with Chief Epidemiologists from EU Member States *

  Professor Dr Sotirios Tsiodras, Chief strategic advisor to the Hellenic Government on the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece

  Professor Dr Erika Vlieghe, Chair of the COVID-19 Management Strategy Expert Group (GEMS) in Belgium

  Dr Katharina Reich, Chair of the COVID-19 crisis coordination cell (GECKO) in Austria

  Professor Jérôme Salomon, Director General of Health, in France

  Dr Rui Portugal, Deputy-Director General of Health, in Portugal

* ENVI Committee invited

Tuesday, 30 August 2022 pm (15:30-18:30)

Exchange of views with the European Commission

  Sandra Gallina, Director-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission

Exchange of views with Health Ministers from the EU

  Aki Lindén, Minister of Family Affairs and Social Services, Finland

  Professor Alexandru Rafila, Minister of Health, Romania

  Professor Frank Vandenbroucke, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Health and Social Affairs, Belgium

Monday, 5 September 2022 pm

Public Hearing with CEOs of pharmaceutical companies producing vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 (first hearing) *

  Exchange of views with Dr Rudolf Ertl, Senior Vice-President Commercial Operations, Gilead Sciences;

  Exchange of views with Thomas Triomphe, Executive Vice-President of Vaccines, Sanofi

  Exchange of views with Iskra Reic, Executive Vice-President of Vaccines and Immune Therapies, AstraZeneca

  Exchange of views with Stéphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer, Moderna

Wednesday, 7 September 2022 pm

Public Hearing with experts on contracts for pharmaceutical companies producing vaccines and treatments for COVID-19

  Exchange of views with Dr Rosa Castro, Senior Policy Manager for Healthcare Delivery & EPHA (European Public Health Alliance) Networks Coordinator

  Exchange of views with Ancel·la Santos, Senior Health Policy Officer BEUC (The European Consumer Organisation)

Exchange of views with the European Ombudsman

  Exchange of views with Emily O’Reilly, European Ombudsman

Week 38 - Nine (9) Member Mission of the COVI Special Committee to the European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam (the Netherlands), 20 September 2022, and BioNTech, Mainz (Germany), 21 September 2022)

Week 40 - Question for oral answer O-000024/2022 to the Commission, Rule 136 by Kathleen Van Brempt on behalf of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future and Pascal Canfin on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, ( 2022/2735(RSP) )

Monday, 10 October 2022 pm

Public Hearing with CEOs of pharmaceutical companies producing vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 (second hearing) *

  Exchange of views with Janine Small, President of International Developed Markets, Pfizer

  Exchange of views with Dr Franz-Werner Haas, Chief Executive Officer, Curevac

  Exchange of views with Stanley Erck, Chief Executive Officer, Novavax

  Exchange of views with Roger Connor, President Global Vaccines, Glaxo Smith Kline

  Exchange of views with Carlos Montañés, Executive Vice-President, HIPRA

Thursday, 13 October 2022 am

Public Hearing focusing on Global South and WHO pandemic treaty

  Exchange of views with Dr Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations) / DEVE Committee invited

  Exchange of views with Roland Driece, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response / ENVI Committee invited

Joint presentation with the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT)

  ECA Special report 19/2022: EU COVID-19 vaccine procurement – Sufficient doses secured after initial challenges, but performance of the process not sufficiently assessed

Presentation of the special report by reporting ECA Member Joëlle Elvinger.

Wednesday, 26 October 2022 am/pm

Public Hearing with the Director-Generals of the WHO and WTO, focusing on WHO pandemic treaty, the inclusion of non-WHO-members, trade barriers and the WTO TRIPS waiver, with ministers from the global south, including the performance of COVAX (first hearing)

  Exchange of views with European Commission Vice-President Margaritis Schinas, Promoting our European Way of Life

  Exchange of views with Dr Ciro Ugarte, Director of Health Emergencies Department, Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO) and Dr Suerie Moon, Co-Director, Global Health Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

  Exchange of views with Mr Dimitri Eynikel, senior policy analyst, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

Thursday, 27 October am

Public Hearing with the Director-Generals of the WHO and WTO, focusing on WHO pandemic treaty, the inclusion of non-WHO-members, trade barriers and the WTO TRIPS waiver, with ministers from the global south, including the performance of COVAX (second hearing)

  Exchange of views with Samia Saad, Executive Director Resource Mobilisation and Investor Relations, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)

  Exchange of views with Dr Sibongiseni Dhlomo, Deputy Health Minister, South Africa

  Exchange of views with Anabel González, Deputy Director-General, World Trade Organisation (WTO)

  Exchange of views with Dr Michael Ryan, Executive Director, Health Emergencies Programme, World Health Organisation (WHO).

Monday, 14 November 2022 pm

Public Hearing on Impact on the labour market and working conditions (pm)*

  Exchange of views with Lieve Verboven, International Labour Organization

  Exchange of views with Jan Willem Goudriaan, European Federation of Public Service Unions and Claes-Mikael Ståhl, European Trade Union Confederation

  Exchange of views with Christina Sode Haslund, Confederation of Danish Employers and Véronique Willems, SMEunited

* EMPL Committee invited

Public hearings on the Socio-economic impact (3rd pillar)

Monday, 28 November pm

Public hearing on the Socio-economic impact on vulnerable people*

Session I - Exchange of views with:

  Dr Kirsten Rennie, Senior Research Associate, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine

  Ms Kahina Rabahi, Policy and Advocacy Coordinator, European Anti-Poverty Network

  Dr Ion Beratis, Supervisor, Alzheimer Centre of the "Nestor" Psychogeriatric Society

Session II - Exchange of views with:

  Dr Eleni Skouteli, President, the Hellenic Society for the Protection and Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons

  Mr Pascal Garel, Chief Executive, European Hospital and Healthcare Federation

  Ms Nadia Hadad, Member of the Executive Committee, European Disability Forum

  Ms Kira West, Chair, The Danish Council on Socially Disadvantaged Adults

Tuesday, 29 November 2023 am

Public hearing on the Gender dimension of the pandemic**

  Ms Sarah Benson, CEO, Women's Aid Ireland

  Ms Réka Sáfrány, President, European Women’s Lobby

  Ms Diana Ongiti, Global COVID-19 Appeal Manager, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

  Dr Lina Salanauskaite, Research coordinator, European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

Session III - Exchange of views with:

  Ms Helena Dalli, Commissioner for Equality

  *EMPL Committee invited

  ** FEMM Committee invited

Tuesday, 29 November 2022 pm

Hearing on the Evaluation of the Performance of EU Support Instruments

  Paolo Gentiloni, Commissioner for Economy and Monetary Affairs

  Professor Melinda Mills, Oxford University

  Professor André Sapir, Université Libre de Bruxelles

  Ms Ditte Maria Brasso Sorensøn and Mr Rasmus Foss, Think Tank EUROPA

  Mr Krzysztof Izdebski, Open Spending EU Coalition

  * BUDG/ECON and CONT Committees invited

Thursday, 8 December 2022 am

Public Hearing on 'Socio-economic impact and the effects of the COVID-19 on children'*

  Drs K.E. Illy, Head of the Dutch Organisation of Paediatricians

  Professor Dr. Kristof de Witte, Catholic University of Leuven

  Dr Ally Dunhill, Head of Advocacy, Eurochild

  Theoni Koufonikolakou, Chairperson, European Network of Ombudsmen for Children (ENOC), Deputy Ombudswoman for Children’s Rights in Greece

Tuesday, 24 January 2023 am

CONT/COVI Joint Committee presentation of 24 January 2023

  Joint presentation of the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) and the Special Committee on Covid-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future (COVI) on the ECA Special Report 18/2022 - EU institutions and COVID-19 - Responded rapidly, challenges still ahead to make the best of the crisis-led innovation and flexibility

Monday, 30 January 2023

Public Hearing on ‘The impact of disinformation, misinformation and propaganda on democracy during the pandemic’ - with INGE 2 Chair Mr Glucksmann participation

Session I - Exchanges of views with:

  Professor Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou, Research Scientist, Center for Constructive Communication, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

  Mr Edward Lucas, Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)

Session II   - Presentation of the study ‘The effect of communication and disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic’ by the authors:

  Dr. Audra Diers-Lawson, Associate Professor at the School of Communication, Leadership, and Marketing, Kristiania University College, Oslo

  Ms Cécile Jacob, Senior Consultant, Valdani Vicari & Associati, (VVA Brussel).

Tuesday, 31 January 2023 am

Public Hearing on ‘Impact of the Pandemic on EU Democracies’ - with AFCO participation

Session I - Presentation of EPRS Study: Parliamentary oversight of governments' response to

the COVID-19 pandemic: literature review

  Dr Mihail Chiru, University of Oxford

  Professor Spyridon Vlachopoulos, University of Athens

  Sophia Russack, Researcher, Centre for European Studies

  Julie Majerczak, Head of Brussels Office, Reporters Without Borders

  COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future: Exchange of

views without document- Presentation by Dolors Montserrat (EPP), Rapporteur

Tuesday, 31 January 2023 pm

Public Hearing on ‘The impact of the pandemic in fundamental rights’

Session 1 - Exchange of views with Michael O’Flaherty, Director, European Fundamental

Rights Agency

Session 2 - Exchange of views with:

  Professor Dr Morten Kjaerum, Director, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human

    Rights and Humanitarian Law

  Karolina Iwanska, Digital Civic Space Advisor, European Center for Not-For-Profit Law

  Session 3 - Exchange of views with:

  Ana Peláez Narváez, Executive Vice-president, Spanish Committee of Representatives of People with Disabilities

  Maciej Kucharczyk, Secretary-General, AGE Platform Europe

Monday, 6 February 2023 pm

Public Hearing on ‘The resilience of (international) supply chains of vaccines and critical

medical goods, and the question of health-related ‘EU strategic autonomy’

  Mr Matthias Bauer, European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)

  Mr Chad Bown, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics

Session II - Exchanges of views with:

  Ms Sibilia Quilici, Executive Director Vaccines Europe

  Professor Massimo Florio, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan

20-24 February 2023

COVI ad hoc delegation to Cape Town, South Africa, combined with Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Monday, 27 February 2023 pm

  Exchange of views with Jutta Urpilainen, Commissioner for International Partnerships

  Exchange of views with Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice President of the European Commission, Commissioner for Trade

Tuesday, 28 February 2023 am

Public Hearing on one Health

  Dr Franck Verdonck, Head of Unit, Biological Hazards & Animal Health and Welfare, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

  Professor Dr Carlos Gonçalo das Neves, Chief Scientist, Executive Director Office, EFSA

  Dr Chadia Wannous, One Health Global Coordinator, World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH)

  Professor Dr Adolfo García-Sastre, Director of the Global Health and Emerging Pathogens Institute, and Professor in both the Department of Microbiology and the Department of Medicine (Division of Infectious Diseases) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

  Professor Dr Henrique Cyrne Carvalho, Director, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar (ICBAS)

  Dr Benjamin Roche, Research Director, French National Research Institute for sustainable development (IRD)

Session III

  Professor Marion Koopmans, Head of the department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center

  Dr Susanne Wagner, Managing Director, MSL-Management Wagner

Tuesday, 28 February 2023 pm

Presentation of the study ‘The European public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

lessons for future cross-border health threats’ by the authors:

  Dr. Mike Beke, Ecorys – Principal Consultan

  Timothy Yu-Cheong Yeung, CEPS – Research Fellow

Exchange of views with the Rapporteur Ms Montserrat on the draft report COVID-19

pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future (COVI/9/09469

2022/2076(INI) )

Wednesday, 8 March 2023, pm

Workshop ‘EU crisis preparedness and response’, organised by the POLDEP A, DG IPOL

Session I - Exchange of views with

  Dr Andrea Ammon, Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

PHIRI: harnessing health information to improve pandemic preparedness:

  Dr Petronille Bogaert, Sciensano, Belgium

Session II - Exchange of views with

  Professor Marion Koopmans, Erasmus MC Rotterdam ; Scientific Advisory Group World Health Organisation (WHO); formerly member of the COVID-19 Advisory Panel of the European Commission

  Coordinative Europeanisation: The EU Institutional Architecture in the COVID-19 Response:

  Dr Stella Ladi, Queen Mary University of London

Governance of the European pandemic response mechanism: review and prospects:

Professor Claude Blumann, University Paris-Panthéon-Assas

Thursday, 9 March 2023, am

Workshop ‘Long Covid’ organised by the POLDEP A, DG IPOL

Session I - Long COVID definition, epidemiology and symptoms - Exchange of views with:

  Professor Peter Piot , London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Commission’s advisory panel on COVID-19

  Professor Dominique Salmon, President of the Working Group on Long COVID, French Health High Authority)

Potential underlying mechanisms, diagnostics and treatment

  Professor Dr. Clara Lehmann, German Center for Infection Research, University of Cologne

Session II - Long COVID and post-vaccination syndrome - Exchange of views with:

  Professor Dr. Bernhard Schieffer, Philips University Clinic Marburg

Myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME-CFS) as part of Long COVID:

  Professor Dr. Carmen Scheibenbogen, Charité University Hospital Berlin

Long COVID patients’ assessment of the current situation and needs

  Ms Ann Li (Long COVID Europe)

24 March 2023, pm

Presentation of the DG IPOL study ‘Mapping of long-term public and private investments in the development of COVID-19 vaccines’, organised by the POLDEP A, DG IPOL.

Main findings of the study: who has taken the risk

  Prof. Massimo Florio, University of Milan and CSIL

Tracking the data

  Chiara Pancotti, CSIL

Future R&D needs and IPR issues

  Simona Gamba, Assistant Professor, University of Milan

Monday, 27 March 2023 pm

  Exchange of views with Commissioner Kyriakides

  Exchange of views with Director-General Cooke, European Medicines Agency

2nd exchange of views with the Rapporteur Ms Montserrat on the draft report COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future ( 2022/2076(INI) )

Tuesday, 25 April 2023 am

Draft report COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future ( 2022/2076(INI) )

  Consideration of amendments

  Exchange of views in the presence of the European Commission

Monday, 12 June 2023 pm

Vote in committee on the Draft report COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future ( 2022/2076(INI) )

Studies commissioned at the request of the COVI Special Committee

A. Studies by Policy departments of DG IPOL

•   Intersectional evaluation of the impact of the pandemic on different groups (including gender, generational differences and vulnerable groups)

  Intersections between COVID-19, mental health and socio-economic stressors in the lives of adolescent and young people;

  Impact of COVID-19 measures, including lockdowns, on children and vulnerable people: learning backlog, mental health, etc. Influence of social distance on mental health and health in general: fear, worry;

  An update reflecting the data of the last two years for a comprehensive and recent overview: Tackling violence against women and domestic violence in Europe - The added value of the Istanbul Convention and remaining challenges.

•   Social-economic consequences of COVID-19 (building on Gentiloni’s study)

  The impact of COVID-19 measures, including lockdowns, on workers, especially front line workers, and their working conditions;

  Impact of the pandemic on the cultural and creative sectors;

  The effects of COVID-19 measures, including lockdowns, on businesses and industry, with special attention to SMEs;

  Temporary Framework for state aid support: the guidance from the Commission to Member States to use state aid, the beneficiaries of these schemes (per country, sector and type of companies), the conditions member states attached to the aid, the impact of business models of companies and lessons learnt for the future;

  Impact and different application by member states of the EU digital COVID certificate and Passenger Locator Forms.

•   Mapping of long-term public and private investments in the development of COVID-19 vaccines

•   Impact of COVID-19 measures on democracy and fundamental rights: best practices and lessons learned in the Member States and Third countries

•   The effect of communication and disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic

  Communication by Member States and the European Commission on how to prevent and deal with COVID-19, how the communication affected the acceptance of measures by citizens and how they addressed misinformation (with recommendations for the future);

  Disinformation during the pandemic.

B. Studies by DG EPRS

•   Comprehensive strategy for COVID-19 pandemic and response and preparedness for cross-border health threats: lessons learned and recommendations for the future

  European Added Value, evaluation and implementation of the national strategies of vaccination and the need for a European Strategy of Vaccination;

  Creating a more robust framework for coordination at Union level and European Added Value: rescEU, the Joint Procurement Agreement (JPA) and the EU Emergency Support Initiative (ESI) for procurement of PPE, medical equipment and vaccines, essential medical products and medicines, including active pharmaceutical ingredients (API);

  Possible benefits of Treaty change for strengthening the EU’s resilience and preparedness for health threats;

  Prevention, preparedness and public health response including the implementation of the One Health approach;

  State of COVID-19 vaccination in the European Union (including information on dates of access to vaccination and vaccine distribution per category of population, as well as polling on vaccines support in Member States);

  Transparency in the manufacturing of vaccines and Independent scientific evidence on vaccine effectiveness.

•   Literature review of reports by EU parliaments on the pandemic

  Issues identified, common conclusions and important divergences.

pursuant to Rule 55(4 ) of the Rules of Procedure

Virginie Joron

- Notes that it was impossible to consult the unredacted vaccine purchase agreements;

- Notes that Commission President did not share with the COVI Committee the SMS messages exchanged with Pfizer’s CEO;

- notes that Pfizer's CEO did not respond to the committee's invitation to provide appropriate explanations;

- stresses that Pfizer's President of International Markets, stated that Pfizer did not know whether transmission of the virus was prevented and whether immunisation was sufficient before placing its vaccine on the market;

- stresses the drastic censorship measures from social medias against critical statements of the Covid measures, including against official speeches by MEPs in Chamber;

- underlines the numerous and concerning cases of patients suffering side-effects consequences of Covid vaccines;

- Calls for recognition of the "post-vaccination syndrome" resulting from Covid vaccination;

- Calls for the suppliers of Covid vaccines to be fully liable for any side effects;

- Calls for a fair compensation if damages resulting from the Covid measures and vaccines;

- Calls for the management of future pandemics to entail no infringement of fundamental rights;

- Calls for a committee of enquiry to be set up in accordance with Article 208

Key to symbols:

+   :   in favour

-   :   against

0   :   abstention

  • [1] OJ C 347, 9.9.2022, p. 234.
  • [2] OJ C 342, 6.9.2022, p. 109.
  • [3] OJ C 512 I , 20.12.2021, p. 2.
  • [4] OJ C 393 I, 29.9.2021 p. 3.
  • [5] OJ L 211, 15.6.2021, p. 1.
  • [6] OJ L 458, 22.12.2021, p. 1.
  • [7] OJ L 20, 31.1.2022, p. 1.
  • [8] OJ L 314, 6.12.2022, p. 64.
  • [9] OJ L 314, 6.12.2022, p. 26.
  • [10] OJ L 314, 6.12.2022, p. 1.
  • [11] OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 164.
  • [12] OJ L 326, 11.12.2015, p. 1.
  • [13] OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.
  • [14] OJ L 151, 14.5.2020, p. 10.
  • [15] OJ L 223, 22.6.2021, p. 14.
  • [16] OJ C 205, 20.5.2022, p. 26.
  • [17] OJ C 362, 8.9.2021; p. 2.
  • [18] OJ C 316, 6.8.2021, p. 2.
  • [19] OJ C 362, 8.9.2021, p. 77.
  • [20] OJ C 362, 8.9.2021, p. 82.
  • [21] OJ C 371, 15.9.2021, p. 102.
  • [22] OJ C 385, 22.9.2021, p. 159.
  • [23] OJ C 415, 13.10.2021, p. 36.
  • [24] OJ C 184, 5.5.2022, p. 99.
  • [25] OJ C 47, 7.2.2023, p. 30.
  • [26] OJ C 125, 5.4.2023, p. 44.
  • [27] OJ C 99, 1.3.2022, p. 10.
  • [28] OJ C 491, 23.12.2022, p. 1.
  • [29] OJ C 385, 22.9.2021, p. 83.
  • [30] OJ C 67, 8.2.2022, p. 64.
  • [31] OJ C 67, 8.2.2022, p. 25
  • [32] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/158295.
  • [33] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/141706.
  • [34] A state of emotional, physical, and mental exhaustion caused by excessive and prolonged stress.
  • [35] Bender, M. et al., ‘The Terrible Toll of 76 Autoimmune Diseases’, Scientific American, Vol. 325, No 3, 2021, pp. 31-33.
  • [36] Choutka, J. et al., ‘Unexplained post-acute infection syndromes’, Nature Medicine, Vol. 28, 2022, pp. 911-923. Root, T., ‘Can long Covid research unlock other great medical mysteries of our time?’, The Guardian, 2022.
  • [37] Hohberger, B. et al. ‘Case Report: Neutralization of Autoantibodies Targeting G-Protein-Coupled Receptors Improves Capillary Impairment and Fatigue Symptoms After COVID-19 Infection’, Frontiers in Medicine, Vol. 8, 2021.
  • [38] Sachs, J. D. et al., ‘The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic’, The Lancet, Vol. 400, 2022, pp. 1224-80.
  • [39] Regulation (EU) 2022/2370 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 establishing a European centre for disease prevention and control (OJ L 314, 6.12.2022, p. 1).
  • [40] European Parliament resolution of 17 September 2020 entitled ‘Shortage of medicines – how to address an emerging problem’.
  • [41] OECD/EU, ‘Health at a Glance: Europe 2022: State of Health in the EU Cycle’, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2022, p. 14.
  • [42] Sachs, J. D. et al., ‘The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic’, The Lancet, Vol. 400, 2022, pp. 1224-80.
  • [43] World Health Assembly Resolution 72.8 of 28 May 2019 on improving the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines, and other health products.
  • [44] Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65).
  • [45] OECD/EU, ‘Health at a Glance: Europe 2022: State of Health in the EU Cycle’, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2022.
  • [46] OJ C 47, 7.2.2023, p. 30.
  • [47] Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems ( OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8 ).
  • [48] Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) ( OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1 ).
  • [49] Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) ( OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, p. 1 ).
  • [50] OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1 .
  • [51] Gender Equality Index 2021: Health .
  • [52] Eurofound, Recovery from COVID-19: The changing structure of employment in the EU .
  • [53] The tourism industry, which accounts for 10 % of EU GDP, was one of the sectors most affected by the pandemic; recalls that in 2020 the number of overnight stays in tourist establishments in the EU decreased by 51 % compared to 2019 and that there was 71 % less air travel in the EU in 2020 than in 2019.
  • [54] UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore’s remarks at a press conference on new updated guidance on school-related public health measures in the context of COVID-19 .
  • [55] Based on the findings of the 2021 EU study published by the European Economic and Social Committee: The response of civil society organisations to face the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent restrictive measures adopted in Europe, https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-02-21-011-en-n.pdf.
  • [56] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0283_EN.html.
  • [57] Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making (OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1).
  • [58] World Health Assembly, 72. (‎2019)‎. Improving the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines, and other health products. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/329301.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education: international evidence from the Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS)

Corporate author : unesco, corporate author : international association for the evaluation of educational achievement, person as author : meinck, sabine [editor], person as author : fraillon, julian [editor], person as author : strietholt, rolf [editor], isbn : 978-92-3-100502-2, collation : 224 pages, language : english, year of publication : 2022, licence type : cc by-sa 3.0 igo.

book

i THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education International evidence from the Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS) (Revised edition) Sabine Meinck, Julian Fraillon, Rolf StrietholtPublished in 2022 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 7, place de Fontenoy, 75007 Paris, France and Stichting IEA Secretariaat Nederland, 311 Keizersgracht 1016 EE Amsterdam Netherlands. © UNESCO / International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) 2022 Revised edition UNESCO ISBN 978-92-3-100502-2 This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO or the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO or IEA. Editors: Sabine Meinck, Julian Fraillon, Rolf Strietholt Contributing authors: Minge Chen, Julian Fraillon, Emilie Franck, Alec I. Kennedy, Sabine Meinck, Sebastian Meyer, Karsten Penon, Mojca Rožman, Agnes Stancel-Piątak, Rolf Strietholt, Felix Süttmann, Anja Waschk, Clara Wilsher Beyer Front cover image: Front cover image by Dids from Pexels.com. Photo of Empty Class Room. Design: Jasmin Schiffer Lay-out: Becky Bliss Design and Production, Wellington, New Zealand UNESCO – a global leader in education Education is UNESCO’s top priority because it is a basic human right and the foundation for peace and sustainable development. UNESCO is the United Nations’ specialized agency for education, providing global and regional leadership to drive progress, strengthening the resilience and capacity of national systems to serve all learners. UNESCO also leads e orts to respond to contemporary global challenges through transformative learning, with special focus on gender equality and Africa across all actions. The Global Education 2030 Agenda UNESCO, as the United Nations’ specialized agency for education, is entrusted to lead and coordinate the Education 2030 Agenda, which is part of a global movement to eradicate poverty through 17 Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Education, essential to achieve all of these goals, has its own dedicated Goal 4, which aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” The Education 2030 Framework for Action provides guidance for the implementation of this ambitious goal and commitments. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) IEA is an international cooperative of national research institutions, government research agencies, scholars, and researchers working to evaluate, understand, and improve education worldwide. IEA is a non-profit and independent organization. More than 60 countries are actively involved in the IEA network and over 100 education systems participate in its studies.S H O R T S U M M A R Y The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted education provision at an unprecedented scale, with education systems around the world being impacted by extended school closures and abrupt changes to normal school operations. The Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS) investigated how teaching and learning were affected by the health crisis, and how education stakeholders responded to the educational disruption across and within countries. The study aimed to provide a systemic, multi-perspective, and comparative picture of the situation at the secondary education level (grade eight) in 11 countries spanning Africa, Asia, Arab region, Europe, and Latin America. While many other efforts exist that collect and provide similar information, they are mostly derived from non-representative rapid surveys and lack internationally comparable information from schools, collected in a systematic and scientific manner. The REDS International Report presents unique data, collected from countries, schools, teachers, and students for the first time, in chapters that cover several themes on which data were collected which include student and teacher well-being, students’ academic progress during the school closures, and the measures countries have implemented to keep all children learning. Initial findings provide evidence for better orienting and tailoring policy responses to crisis and provide invaluable information on what may be required to accelerate education, recover from crisis, and to strengthen the resilience of education systems in the future.The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education International evidence from the Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS) (Revised edition)This report, based on the findings of the Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS), is about data, evidence, and insights for reimagining teaching and learning and building resilient and inclusive education systems for the future. It is a joint effort by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as an initiative of the Global Education Coalition (GEC) that was launched by UNESCO in March 2020 to ensure continuity of learning around the world at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The report aims to bring to light the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning, not only in terms of challenges but also opportunities for change based on scientifically collected first-hand information. The survey, focusing on lower-secondary education (grade 8), covers eleven countries of varying income and education development levels across Africa (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda), Asia (India, Uzbekistan), the Arab region (United Arab Emirates), Europe (Denmark, Russian Federation, Slovenia), and Latin America (Uruguay). Using random probability samples and scientific data collection procedures as well as rigorous analysis methods, REDS investigated how school systems in these countries responded to educational disruptions and the measures adopted both at the national and school levels to enable learning continuity. The findings, drawn from reliable data and robust evidence, have revealed how education systems and schools were insufficiently prepared for abrupt, large- scale changes due to massive school closures. The unprecedented nature of this disruption requires the rapid availability of fresh data to inform the policy response. The REDS study was conducted within a record timeline - less than 18 months compared to a timeframe of 4 years generally required for such large scale studies - while maintaining high standards of data reliability. It provides cross-nationally comparable data covering an extensive range of topics associated with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on education, and as perceived by school principals, teachers and students who were directly affected. These perceptions are enlightening evidence to better orient and tailor policy responses. The large majority of teachers report being open to innovation and believe that new approaches to teaching and learning will remain after the pandemic. More than half state that students have not progressed to the levels expected. On their side, a large cohort of students report anxiety about disruptions to their schooling, with those from low socio-economic backgrounds feeling less confident about completing school work independently. To respond to different and specific needs, interventions have to be tailored to the context of every school, in how teaching and learning is organized. The findings highlight the need, and the opportunity we have, to incorporate more adaptive, innovative and alternative delivery methods to support students, especially those most at risk of no or partial schooling for protracted durations. This lesson is vital for crisis response in the future, but also to ensure that student learning and their well-being are prioritized in the recovery, as the pandemic continues to disrupt education systems. A successful educational recovery is one that builds resilience, relevance and inclusion, to ensure that every child and youth learns meaningfully, safely and sustainably. It involves reimagining education and learning while recommitting to what we know works and reflecting on what does not. Above all, in this search for resilience and transformation, it is a reminder to all of us that evidence, dialogue and cooperation are game changers for children’s learning journey, in pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goal on education that is a fundamental human right. Stefania Giannini Assistant Director-General for Education UNESCO Dirk Hastedt Executive Director IEA ForewordAcknowledgments The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of numerous individuals and institutions that made this report possible. First and foremost, we would like to acknowledge the important and invaluable work of implementing the plans and questionnaires within the individual countries, which was provided by the dedicated REDS National Research Coordinators: Etienne Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso), Jacob Christensen (Denmark), Yilikal Wondimeneh Demissie (Ethiopia), Jyoti Bawane and Murzban Jal (India), Samuel Ngaruiya (Kenya), Olga Chikanova (Russian Federation), Rose Baguma and Fabien Habimana (Rwanda), Eva Klemen (Slovenia), Shaikha Alzaabi and Nada Ruban (United Arab Emirates), Cecilia Hughes (Uruguay), and Abduvali Ismailov (Uzbekistan). We also thank the significant contribution of the many different teams and members of IEA that contributed to different phases of the study and preparation of the report. For survey management: Sebastian Meyer and Anja Waschk; sampling: Karsten Penon and Felix Süttmann; data management systems and analysis: Yasin Afana, Clara Beyer, Svenja Kalmbach, Adeoye Oyekan, Xiao Sui and Duygu Uyar; software development and testing: Elma Cela, Deepti Kalamadi, Lorelia Lerps and Meng Xue; research and analysis: Minge Chen, Julian Fraillon, Emilie Franck, Alec I. Kennedy, Jonathan Linden, Sabine Meinck, Mojca Rožman, Agnes Stancel-Piątak, Rolf Strietholt, and Nayeli Urdiales; communication, publication, production and coordination: Inasa Bibic, Roel Burgers, Laura Cheeseman, Philippa Elliott, Isabelle Gémin, Katie Hill, Raegen Jackson, Andrea Netten, Jasmin Schiffer, Jan-Philipp Wagner, and Jimena Vollbrecht, under the expert guidance of Dirk Hastedt. Additional thanks go to the IEA Publications and Editorial Committee (PEC), led by its Chair, Seamus Hegarty whose critical advice and suggestions enhanced the overall quality of the report. We would also like to thank the enthusiastic, detailed, and thoughtful contributions from UNESCO, in particular, Gwang Chol Chang, Le Thu Huong, Awol Endris Adem, Omar Diop, Saidou Jallow, Abinav Kumar, Pascal Rakund, Anne Muller, and Roberto Carrera Hernandez, under the guidance of Borhene Chakroun. We also wish to acknowledge the short-term consultants who worked tirelessly to support the research, review, and data analysis: Markus Schwabe, Nguyen Ngoc Tram and Teerada Na Jatturas. Furthermore, we also extend our thanks to a further group of UNESCO colleagues who also provided valuable feedback Manos Antoninis, Sonia Guerriero, Peter Wallet, Justine Sass, and Le Thu Huong. Finally, we are extremely grateful to several institutions and their staff for their contribution to REDS, notably the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre: Alice Bertoletti, Federico Biagi, Abdel Bitat, Giorgio di Pietro, Zbigniew Karpiński and Marco Montanari, and the Australian Council for Educational Research: John Ainley, Sharon Every, Julian Fraillon, Tim Friedman, Jennifer Hong, Celia McNeilly, Gayl O’Connor, Greta Rollo and Wolfram Schulz. Additional thanks also go to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for their kind support. We apologize for any omissions and express our sincerest thanks to everyone, whether named here or not, who graciously gave their time and expertise.Table of contents Executive summary Chapter 1: Introduction to the Responses to Educational Disruption Survey 1 How to read this report 1 Chapter 2: The conceptual background of REDS 7 Chapter highlights 7 Introduction 7 Research themes and respondents in the REDS conceptual framework 11 Description of the eight REDS research themes 12 Chapter 3: Methods, procedures, and data 20 Chapter highlights 20 Introduction 21 Instrument development 21 Target populations 21 Sampling design and implementation 22 Data collection 23 Data cleaning 27 Statistical analysis methods 28 Limitations of REDS 29 Chapter 4: International findings 34 National contexts 34 Impact of the pandemic on classroom teaching and learning 54 Communication, feedback, and assessment 84 Help and support for teaching and learning 107 Well-being of students and teachers 126 Transitioning students back to school 151 Academic progress, preparedness for future disruptions, and persisting changes 168 Inequalities in teaching and learning during the pandemic 184 Chapter 5: Reflections and conclusions 202 Appendices 210 Appendix A1: Sampling information and participation rates 210 Appendix A2: Country summaries 220 Errata note 225List of tables and figures Tables Table 2.1: REDS questionnaires that addressed the eight REDS research themes 11 Table 3.1: Achieved sample sizes 23 Table 3.2: Exclusion rates (%) 31 Table 4.2.1: Most frequent school responses for beginning, and end of the 56 disruption period Table 4.2.2: Percentages of teachers teaching their class remotely 58 Table 4.2.3: Percentages of teachers spending 240 minutes or more teaching 60 students on a typical day before and during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.2.4: Percentages of students attending lessons at school or in a place away 62 from school during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.2.5: Percentages of students having access to the following resources 63 at home during the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Percentages of students having access to the following resources at 64 home during the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.2.6: Percentages of teachers to whom the following working conditions 65 applied all of the time or part of the time during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.2.7: Percentages of schools that made specific changes to school policies and 67 procedures during or following the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.2.8: Percentages of schools whose capacity to deliver remote teaching was 68 substantially limited or somewhat limited (part 1 of 3) Percentages of schools whose capacity to deliver remote teaching was 69 substantially limited or somewhat limited (part 2 of 3) Percentages of schools whose capacity to deliver remote teaching was 70 substantially limited or somewhat limited (part 3 of 3) Table 4.2.9: Percentages of schools providing the following resources before or 71 during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.2.10: Percentages of schools that made the following resources available 73 to all or some students during the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Percentages of schools that made the following resources available 74 to all or some students during the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.2.11: Percentages of students reporting an increase in the following aspects 76 of their schoolwork during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.2.12: Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 77 about their learning progress during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.2.13: Percentages of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 78 regarding the delivery and planning of curriculum content to their class during the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2)Percentages of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with 79 statements regarding the delivery and planning of curriculum content to their class during the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.2.14: Percentages of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 80 about the quality of teaching and learning in their class during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.2.15: Percentages of teachers reporting a decrease to some degree or 82 substantial decrease in aspects of student learning and engagement in comparison with the time before the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.2.16: Percentages of principals reporting an increase in the time allocated 83 to teachers for certain activities in comparison to before the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.3.1: Students communicating with their teachers and classmates sometimes 86 or often (part 1 of 2) Students communicating with their teachers and classmates sometimes 87 or often (part 2 of 2) Table 4.3.2: Percentages of students receiving materials or information from their 89 school sometimes or often Table 4.3.3: Students receiving materials sometimes or often for their lessons 90 Table 4.3.4: Percentages of teachers reporting an increase in time spent on 91 communication Table 4.3.5: Percentages of schools reporting an increase in time allocated to teachers 93 for communication Table 4.3.6: The increase in time teachers spent on communicating with 94 parents/guardians of students in their class in comparison with before the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) The increase in time teachers spent on communicating with 95 parents/guardians of students in their class in comparison with before the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.3.7: Percentages of students receiving their teachers’ feedback to some or 96 most or all, or almost all of their schoolwork (part 1 of 2) Percentages of students receiving their teachers’ feedback to some or 97 most or all, or almost all of their schoolwork (part 2 of 2) Table 4.3.8: Teachers reporting an increase in providing feedback to students in their 99 class in comparison with before the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Teachers reporting an increase in providing feedback to students in their 100 class in comparison with before the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.3.9: Teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements on the assessment 101 of student learning in their class during the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements on the assessment 102 of student learning in their class during the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2)Table 4.3.10: Principals’ expectations of the assessment of student learning during 104 the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Principals’ expectations of the assessment of student learning during 105 the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.3.11: Percentages of schools implementing policy changes related to assessment 106 and reporting implementing the changes to a large or to some extent Table 4.4.1: Persons helping students with their schoolwork at home sometimes 109 or often, or always Table 4.4.2: Students receiving no help at all with their schoolwork at home (part 1 of 2) 110 Students receiving no help at all with their schoolwork at home (part 2 of 2) 111 Table 4.4.3: Students receiving support from their teachers (part 1 of 2) 113 Students receiving support from their teachers (part 2 of 2) 114 Table 4.4.4: Teachers providing support to students and their families during the 116 COVID-19 disruption to a large or some extent Table 4.4.5: Teachers’ capacity to support students during the COVID-19 disruption 117 Table 4.4.6: Teachers’ professional development in selected areas before the 119 COVID-19 disruption Table 4.4.7: Percentages of schools that increased the use of resources and activities 120 during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.4.8: Percentages of schools providing increased support to parents and 121 guardians during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.4.9: Percentages of schools providing support to parents and guardians before 123 or during the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Percentages of schools providing support to parents and guardians before 124 or during the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.4.10: Percentages of schools feeling very well or somewhat supported by people 125 or organizations during the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.5.1: Percentages of students who reported on various impacts of learning at 128 home most of the time or always Table 4.5.2: Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 129 regarding their well-being during the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 130 regarding their well-being during the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.5.3: Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 132 about how they felt during the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 3) Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 133 about how they felt during the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 3) Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 134 about how they felt during the COVID-19 disruption (part 3 of 3)Table 4.5.4: Percentages of students who were affected by different situations 136 Table 4.5.5: Negative effects during the COVID-19 disruption on teachers' well-being 137 Table 4.5.6: Teachers’ abilities to cope with the changing job requirements during the 138 COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Teachers’ abilities to cope with the changing job requirements during the 139 COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.5.7: Percentages of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 141 about the support offered or given to them by others during the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Percentages of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 142 about the support offered or given to them by others during the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.5.8: Percentages of schools that provided different types of support for 143 school staff (part 1 of 2) Percentages of schools that provided different types of support for 144 school staff (part 2 of 2) Table 4.5.9: Teachers providing support to students and their families during the 145 COVID-19 disruption to some or to a large extent Table 4.5.10: Percentages of students who received helpful information on selected 146 topics from their school or teachers (part 1 of 2) Percentages of students who received helpful information on selected 147 topics from their school or teachers (part 2 of 2) Table 4.5.11: Percentages of principals reporting an increase in their school’s use of 149 different support resources for students in comparison with the time before the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Percentages of principals reporting an increase in their school’s use of 150 different support resources for students in comparison with the time before the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.6.1: Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 153 about their experiences returning to school after the COVID-19 disruption (part 1 of 2) Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 154 about their experiences returning to school after the COVID-19 disruption (part 2 of 2) Table 4.6.2: Percentages of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 155 with respect to their class when they returned to regular lessons at school after the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.6.3: Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 157 about their school and classroom experiences after the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.6.4: Percentages of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 158 with respect to their classroom environment when they returned to regular lessons at school after the COVID-19 disruptionTable 4.6.5: Percentages of teachers using methods to facilitate students' learning after 159 their return to school to a large or some extent Table 4.6.6: Percentages of schools using methods to support students' learning after 161 their return to school (part 1 of 2) Percentages of schools using methods to support students' learning after 162 their return to school (part 2 of 2) Table 4.6.7: Percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements 163 about their school experiences after the COVID-19 disruption Table 4.6.8: Percentages of teachers using methods to support students' well-being 165 after their return to school to a large or some extent Table 4.6.9: Percentages of schools making provisions to support the social and 166 emotional well-being of students to facilitate regular (face-to-face) teaching (part 1 of 2) Percentages of schools making provisions to support the social and 167 emotional well-being of students to facilitate regular (face-to-face) teaching (part 2 of 2) Table 4.7.1: Percentages of students feeling confident or very confident about learning 171 in the future (part 1 of 2) Percentages of students feeling confident or very confident about learning 172 in the future (part 2 of 2) Table 4.7.2: Percentages of teachers believing certain practices or procedures will be 173 somewhat or very important in future (part 1 of 2) Percentages of teachers believing certain practices or procedures will be 174 somewhat or very important in future (part 2 of 2) Table 4.7.3: Percentages of schools that took specific actions to prepare for remote 176 teaching in case of future disruptions such as the one caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (part 1 of 2) Percentages of schools that took specific actions to prepare for remote 177 teaching in case of future disruptions such as the one caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (part 2 of 2) Table 4.7.4: Percentages of schools that increased priorities for selected topics to 178 some degree or substantially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (part 1 of 2) Percentages of schools that increased priorities for selected topics to 179 some degree or substantially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (part 2 of 2) Table 4.7.5: Percentages of schools feeling prepared for providing remote teaching 180 if their school building was closed to students for an extended period in the future Table 4.7.6: Percentages of principals believing academic outcomes of specific groups of 182 students in their school decreased to some degree or substantially due to the experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic (part 1 of 2)Percentages of principals believing academic outcomes of specific 183 groups of students in their school decreased to some degree or substantially due to the experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic (part 2 of 2) Table 4.8.1: Inequalities in the proportion of students who reported that their parents 191 lost their job Table 4.8.2: Inequalities in the proportion of students who reported that their parents 192 worked from home Table 4.8.3: Inequalities in the proportion of students who expressed loneliness 193 Table 4.8.4: Inequalities in the proportion of students who reported to exercise more 195 than usual Table 4.8.5: Inequalities in anxiety about future education 196 Table 4.8.6: Inequalities in anxiety about falling behind in learning 197 Table 4.8.7: Inequalities in confidence to plan schoolwork independently 199 Table 4.8.8: Inequalities in feeling prepared for future school closures 200 Table A1.1: Obtaining school samples – strategies 210 Table A1.2: School-level exclusions prior to sample selection 212 Table A1.3: Stratification variables 213 Table A1.4: Sample sizes 214 Table A1.5: Unweighted participation rates – student survey 216 Table A1.6: Weighted participation rates – student survey 217 Table A1.7: Unweighted participation rates – teacher survey 217 Table A1.8: Weighted participation rates – teacher survey 218 Table A1.9: Participation rates – school survey 218 Table A2.1: Country summaries 221Figures Figure 1.1: Example table without filter question 4 Figure 1.2: Example table with filter question 5 Figure 1.3: Major activities conducted by national centres when working with schools 26 Figure 4.1.1: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 36 January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Burkina Faso Figure 4.1.2: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 38 January 2020-July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Denmark Figure 4.1.3: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 39 January 2020-July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Ethiopia Figure 4.1.4: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 41 January 2020-July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in India Figure 4.1.5: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 43 January 2020-July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Kenya Figure 4.1.6: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 44 January 2020-July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in the Russian Federation Figure 4.1.7: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 46 January 2020-July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Rwanda Figure 4.1.8: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 47 January 2020 July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Slovenia Figure 4.1.9: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 49 January 2020-July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in the United Arab Emirates Figure 4.1.10: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 51 January 2020-July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Uruguay Figure 4.1.11: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from 53 January 2020 July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Uzbekistan Figure 4.2.1: Distribution of duration of disruption period as reported by principals 57 Figure 4.8.1: Students’ sample distribution of gender, SES, and school location 186 Figure 4.8.2: Inequalities in school closures and the continuation of schoolwork 188Executive summary REDS investigated how countries approached the challenge of ensuring continuity in teaching and learning during the educational disruption resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The study’s overarching objectives were to acquire an overview of the situation in a variety of education systems around the world, and to provide policy-makers and education leaders with valuable information for evidence-based decision-making. The REDS data collection took place between December 2020 to July 2021 in 11 countries: Burkina Faso, Denmark, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan. REDS collected questionnaire data from a total of 21,063 students, 15,004 teachers and 1,581 principals. Student data were collected in eight countries, teacher data in ten countries and school data in all 11 countries. Each national research centre responsible for the administration of REDS provided national-level data on the conditions and measures implemented within each country. Data collected for REDS were put through rigorous sampling, data cleaning and processing steps. Due to the accelerated timeline and fluid and unpredictable global pandemic context in which REDS was implemented, REDS data are subject to some limitations, annotated throughout this report. Continuity of teaching and learning varied greatly across countries All 11 countries that participated in REDS reported at least one period of physical school closure in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which most schools were closed for the majority of students. The periods of school closure varied within and across countries, mostly starting in the Northern Hemisphere in Spring of 2020, and lasting one to two months in the Russian Federation and Denmark to almost a year in the United Arab Emirates. In addition to this large variation in the duration of school closures, there were also differences in the participation of students in schooling and the modes, media, and teaching methods used in these periods. In Burkina Faso, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and India, varying proportions of school leaders reported that their schools did not offer any teaching and learning provisions during the disruption. In the remaining six REDS countries—all with higher Human Development Index measures—all schools were reported to continue to offer teaching and learning provisions during the disruption. Where teaching and learning continued, more than half of the teachers reported that they narrowed the focus of their teaching to the essential components of the curriculum. Furthermore, the majority of teachers in most of the countries reported that they also taught highly modified components of the practical curriculum. The large majority of teachers across countries reported being open to innovation and shifting priorities in the future, as well as that, they believed new approaches to teaching and learning will continue to be important after the pandemic. Principals, teachers, and students perceived a decline in learning progress Student achievement was not directly measured in REDS. However, principals, teachers, and students were asked about their perceptions of students’ academic progress during the disruption. Both principals and teachers reported the perception that student learning was impeded during the disruption, with more than 50% of teachers in all countries stating that students have not progressed to the extent that they would have normally expected at that time of year. The data collected from students were more variable in this regard. While more than half of students in most countries reported learning about as much during the disruption as they did before the disruption, about half of the students across countries also agreed that it became more difficult to know how they were progressing.xviii THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Help and support for students was not always available In most countries, students received help from their parents or teachers on learning topics during the disruption. Nonetheless, there was still a significant percentage of students who, at least sometimes, had no one at all available who could help them with their schoolwork. Many teachers acknowledged their role as important supporters of students and their parents on multiple topics regarding learning and beyond. Also, many students agreed they had one or more teachers whom they felt comfortable to ask for help. However, most teachers across countries agreed that it was difficult to provide lower achieving and vulnerable students with the support they required. Schools responded to the threat to well-being Students and teachers reported declines in their well-being during the disruption to schooling. In most countries, over 50% of students agreed that they were feeling overwhelmed by what was happening in the world due to the pandemic and that they were anxious about the changes to their schooling. At the same time, in countries where teaching and learning continued during the disruption, teacher workload generally increased. Schools placed considerable priority and effort into supporting the well-being of staff and students. On a positive note, teachers agreed that they felt supported by the school leadership and by their colleagues, and most students reported feeling supported and part of their school. When considering the future, the majority of school principals in most countries reported increased priorities for promoting student and staff well-being. More effort is needed to prepare schools and students for future disruptions The pandemic was unprecedented, and schools and education systems needed to establish and implement their responses very quickly. This raised the question of the degree to which students, schools, and systems felt prepared for similar disruptions to schooling should they occur in the future. The perceptions of students and school principals regarding their schools’ preparedness for future disruptions vary substantially across countries. A significant percentage of students in all participating countries do not feel very prepared or not prepared at all for such an event in the future. This important finding uncovers a need for further research on identifying those students and developing tailored measures to aid them during disruptions. It also provides the policy-makers with the necessary scientific evidence to develop mechanisms to support students, teachers, and schools in the future. Vulnerable students were more likely to fall behind REDS provides a wealth of data and allows the responses from questionnaires to be considered in the context of other variables, such as socioeconomic status (SES) and gender. This is especially important for identifying inequalities in learning opportunities and concerns about falling behind during the disruptions. Students with low SES were more likely to worry about their future education and falling behind in learning. Additionally, students with low SES were less confident in completing schoolwork independently and were more likely to not feel prepared for school closures. This is further underlined by teachers’ responses that confirmed a reduced capacity to manage the needs of vulnerable students, and higher declines in learning progress, including students with special needs, and students with a migration background. Gender gaps were not consistent and all in all less pronounced. Reflections This international report shows that teaching and learning mostly continued during the COVID-19 disruption with varying alternative delivery methods across countries. This was largely possible because of the flexibility, adaptability, resilience and determination of systems, schools, teachers, and students. However, efforts posed significant challenges associated with increased teacher workload, as well as with teacher and student well-being. Questions remain about whether the changes implemented during the disruption would be sustainable over longer-periods of time.xix THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Further research and consideration is warranted into understanding the factors that both led to successful outcomes for some schools, teachers, and students, but also unsuccessful outcomes for others. This may further inform both ongoing thinking about the changes to regular schooling that may persist following the pandemic and planning to address the challenges of disruptions to schooling that may occur in the future.CHAPTER 1 Introduction to the Responses to Educational Disruption Survey Sabine Meinck, Julian Fraillon Starting in February 2020, Education systems around the world have been impacted in an unprecedented manner and scope as a result of the rapid spread of COVID-19. In June of the same year, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) assumed that “[in the absence of] an intentional and effective education response, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to generate the greatest disruption in educational opportunity worldwide in a generation” (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020). In most, if not all countries around the globe, schools have closed–often repeatedly–for considerable amounts of time in an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19 (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], the United Nations Children Fund [UNICEF], & the World Bank, 2020). Remote teaching and learning were implemented in many countries, with the mediums and methods of delivery determined by local conditions and resources. However, many schools also retained some face-to-face teaching and learning, typically with significant changes to regular school operations resulting from, for example, new hygiene and distancing regulations. At the peak of school closures in early April 2020, over 90% of the world’s school-aged learners were estimated to be affected (UNESCO, 2020). According to findings from the Survey on National Education Responses to COVID-19 School Closures (UNESCO, UNICEF & the World Bank, 2020), by August 2020, on average across 108 countries, students had missed approximately 10 weeks of in-person instruction. In order to ensure learning continuity during the pandemic, education systems had to react fast, with very little time to prepare new distance learning measures and relatively few existing solutions immediately available. Countries were faced with the challenges presented by variations in, for example, students’ access to the internet, learning resources and digital devices (if online learning was to be implemented), the availability of parental or family support for students, and the familiarity of the teaching staff with approaches to remote teaching. In addition, schools were faced by new challenges regarding the monitoring of student learning when teaching and learning were disrupted by the pandemic measures. As a first response, many education systems pushed the introduction of home-schooling programmes and remote learning, offered free online resources, delivered paper- based assignments to students’ homes, or used public TV and radio broadcasting channels to deliver education programmes (UNESCO, UNICEF & World Bank, 2020). Governments and education systems were quick to seek advice from researchers and to support and commission research regarding the impact of the pandemic on education, and a body of important literature is emerging that can help mitigate the impact of the pandemic on education and support the development of unified responses. However, understandably, given the immediate need within countries, most of these research initiatives concentrated on local, national conditions. Until now there has been a lack of internationally comparable first-hand information from schools, teachers, and students collected in a systematic, efficient, and scientific manner using the research methods and standards applied in international large-scale assessment, that would allow looking at variations between countries and facilitate learning from each other. The Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS) was initiated to fill this gap. Eleven countries followed the universal invitation to join the study. REDS collected internationally comparable data from school principals, teachers, and students, contextualized with information gathered at the national level. In an effort to answer the overarching research question: How were teaching and learning affected by the disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and how was this mitigated by the implemented measures, across and within countries? REDS investigated how countries approached the challenge of providing students with the opportunity to continue learning during the educational disruptions, and what conditions2 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION were related to these opportunities. Focusing on the evaluation of the varying situations in lower-secondary education (grade 8), REDS examined systems’ and schools’ preparedness for implementing remote teaching and learning; prior to, during, and after the school closures. This was achieved by collecting data on a broad range of topics related to infrastructure, resourcing, human support mechanisms, and capacities related to remote teaching and learning management. Data were also collected on the plans for and implementation of the return to “regular schooling” following the pandemic. Data collected in REDS included (but were not limited to): the availability of resources for digital or other modes of remote teaching and learning; modes and methods of assessment and feedback; perceptions on the success of strategies implemented during the pandemic; and motivation and engagement of students, teachers, and school leaders to implement teaching and learning under the disruptive conditions. Issues concerned with students’ and teachers’ well-being, including well-being support, were also explored. By analyzing and reporting aspects of these data together with respondents’ background, REDS was also able to examine inequalities in educational learning opportunities during the disruptions. The study’s overarching objective was to acquire an overview of the situation in a variety of education systems around the world. REDS aimed to provide policy-makers and education leaders with valuable information for evidence-based decision-making: allowing them to evaluate the effects of the educational disruptions on their schools, teachers, and students, and develop tailored solutions for mitigating these effects. The study also aimed to uncover which students are at most risk during and as a result of school closures, and to determine factors, characteristics, and implemented measures that may influence the success of remote teaching and learning across countries. The REDS data collection was implemented in between December 2020 to July 2021 in the following 11 countries: Burkina Faso, Denmark, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan. It thereby covered a wide set of countries from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Gulf region, and South America. REDS collected questionnaire data from a total of 21,063 students, 15,004 teachers and 1,581 principals. Student data were collected in eight countries, teacher data in ten countries and school data in all eleven countries. Each national research centre responsible for the administration of REDS provided national-level data on the conditions and measures implemented within each country. Using random probability samples and standardized data collection procedures, as well as rigorous data analysis methods, REDS aims to deliver high quality data and robust evidence on education during the pandemic. The study covers, in an unprecedented manner, cross-nationally comparable data covering an extensive range of topics associated with the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on education, by giving a voice to multiple stakeholders within the participating educational systems. This report presents the first findings of REDS. It will be accompanied by the REDS international database, publicly available via IEA’s data repository (https://www.iea.nl/data-tools), inviting scholars for further in-depth analysis and research. The report will first introduce the conceptual background of REDS (Chapter 2), followed by an overview of the methodology and procedures implemented in the study (Chapter 3). Besides detailing the procedures for sampling, data collection, data cleaning, and statistical analysis, importantly, Chapter 3 will also discuss limitations regarding comparability and validity. Chapter 4 is dedicated to the presentation of the results, starting with country profiles capitalizing on the National context surveys (Section 4.1). This section will be useful to contextualize all following sections within Chapter 4 that present aggregated responses from students, teachers, and school leaders on various topics such as the Impact of the pandemic on classroom teaching and learning (Section 4.2); Communication, feedback, and assessment (Section 4.3); Help and support for teaching and learning (Section 4.4); Well-being of students and teachers (Section 4.5); Transitioning students back to school (Section 4.6); Academic progress, preparedness for future disruptions, and persisting changes (Section 4.7); and Inequalities in teaching and learning during the pandemic (Section 4.8). The report will close providing reflections and conclusions (Chapter 5).3 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION References Reimers, F.M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 pandemic. OECD. https://www.aforges.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/framework.pdf UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank (2020). What have we learnt? Overview of findings from a survey of ministries of education on national responses to COVID-19. Paris, New York, Washington D.C. UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank http://hdl.handle.net/10986/34700 UNESCO. (2020). School closures caused by Coronavirus (Covid-19). UNESCO https://en.unesco.org/ covid19/educationresponse How to read this report • Data collection: This report presents data collected from large random samples of school principals, teachers, and students in secondary schools (mostly grade 8). Results refer to percentages of individuals responding in specific ways to questions posed in the REDS questionnaires. • Reference period: One important concept used in REDS is the reference period, which comprises the initial period of educational disruptions in each country. Respondents were asked to refer to this period for many of the surveys’ questions. Whenever referring to the “COVID-19 disruption” in the report, this reference period is implied. More information on this concept is given in Chapter 2 and duration and time location of the reference period for each country is presented in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1). • Target class: Another significant concept used for the teacher questionnaire is the target class. When answering questions related to teaching, teachers were asked to think of the subject that they taught most in the target grade before the COVID-19 disruption started, this class is referred to as the target class. • Administration of questionnaires: Not all countries chose to administer all questionnaires; India and Uruguay chose to not collect data from students, and Rwanda solely administered the school questionnaire. • Presentation of results: Results are presented in text and table format. See Figures 1.1 and 1.2 for annotated examples of the tables in Chapter 4 (Sections 4.2 to 4.7). Table headers indicate the respective sources of the presented results. • Tables in Chapter 4 can have two–or sometimes even three–parts, indicated in brackets in the table title. • Many tables are not based on data from all respondents, but only those (students, teachers, and schools) who engaged in teaching and learning during the reference period. The percentages presented in those tables need to be interpreted respectively. • Colored bars are used to present results in graphical formats. Black or gray colored bars indicate findings carrying a positive connotation, and red or light red colored bars indicate findings carrying a negative connotation. Black and red colored bars are used when results refer to the whole population or all respondents; gray and light red colored bars are used when results refer only to students, teachers, and schools who engaged in teaching and learning during the reference period (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). • Survey timeframe: REDS was launched and conducted within an extremely tight timeframe, and within a particularly challenging time as schools were still affected by disruptions due to the pandemic. This caused potential threats to the reliability and validity of some results. Chapter 3 gives comprehensive details on the conduct of the study and any arising issues; all tables carry annotations of respective constraints. All results should be viewed with the caveats detailed in this chapter in mind.4 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Representative results: Representative results are based on weighted data and are presented consistently together with their standard errors. Standard errors indicate the uncertainty of the estimated parameters (mostly percentages) related with the fact that not every eligible student, teacher, or school leader in the countries’ populations has participated in REDS. • Of note, school data from Denmark; teacher data from Burkina Faso, Denmark, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uruguay; and student data from Burkina Faso, Denmark, Ethiopia, and Kenya may not be representative of the target population. This caveat is illustrated in all tables by visually separating respective results. For details, please see Chapter 3 for constraints on comparability. Figure 1.1: Example table without filter question Notes: Standard errors appear in parentheses. g Low participation rates. See Appendix A1, Tables A1.5 to A1.9 for details. i More than 5% of targeted teachers were excluded. See Chapter 3, Table 3.1 for details. Percentage of respondents (positive meaning) Country Percentage of repondents (negative meaning) Footnotes hinting to constraints Bars representing responses with a positive connotation are black Bars representing responses with a negative connotation are red Separate table part for data with representativity constraints Standard errors in bracketsCountries which administered the respective questionnaire India 93 (1.5) 90 (2.6) Russian Federationi 81 (1.5) 73 (2.0) Sloveniag 87 (1.1) 79 (1.8) United Arab Emirates 52 (1.6) 49 (1.8) Uzbekistan 80 (1.3) 60 (2.0) Data may not be representative of target population Burkina Faso 83 76 Denmarkg,i 72 34 Ethiopiai 65 58 Kenyai 93 88 Uruguayi 80 485 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Figure 1.2: Example table with filter question Percentage of respondents (positive meaning) Country Percentage of respondents (negative meaning) Percentage of response to filter question (negative meaning) Some constraint related to the filter question Notes: Standard errors appear in parentheses. a This question was not administered in this country assuming all students engaged in some schoolwork during the COVID-19 disruption. g Low participation rates. See Appendix A1, Tables A1.5 to A1.9 for details. h More than 5% of targeted students were excluded. See Chapter 3, Table 3.1 for details. Bars that represent responses with a negative connotation AND account only for a subgroup are in light red Bars that represent responses with a positive connotation AND account only for a subgroup are in gray Subgroup specification related to filter question Filter question resulting in subgroup reporting Russian Federationh a 63 (1.1) 63 (1.1) Sloveniag a 53 (1.0) 62 (1.2) United Arab Emirates a 57 (1.0) 55 (1.1) Uzbekistanh a 55 (1.3) 31 (1.2) Data may not be representative of target population Burkina Faso 85 37 18 Denmark a 44 50 Ethiopiah 44 27 22 Uruguayg 21 24 177 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION CHAPTER 2 The conceptual background of REDS Julian Fraillon, Agnes Stancel-Piątak 1 Schooling that more closely resembles schooling before the pandemic than schooling during the pandemic. Chapter highlights • The REDS conceptual framework was developed to underpin and guide the development of the REDS questionnaire instruments. The content of the framework was determined by reference to the rapidly emerging research literature on the impacts of, what we now know to have been, the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rationales for the inclusion of the content to be measured and reported on in REDS, were driven by the immediate need to gather information that was regarded as important to build a picture of national responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in response to the overarching REDS research question: – How were teaching and learning affected by the disruptions, and how was this mitigated by the implemented measures, across and within countries? • The framework comprises eight research themes (see Section 2.3) that formed the basis for development of the REDS questionnaires to be administered variously at the national level, the school level, and to teachers and students. With only minor exceptions, eight research themes were applicable to the content across all four respondent levels. • The framework has provided the foundation that supports the collection and reporting of REDS data that form the basis of this report. Included in this are the practical and organizational changes in schooling resulting from the COVID-19 disruption, the impacts of the pandemic on teaching and learning and on staff and students within schools, the measures taken to mitigate these impacts, what was happening within schools to help prepare students’ return to “regular”1 schooling, and in what ways the experience of schooling during the pandemic may affect future schooling. • The conceptual framework further establishes the foundation for the collection of respondent background data that can be used to support the reporting of differences across subgroups in this report (from the perspective of inequality in Chapter 4, Section 4.8) and included in the REDS database to support future secondary analyses. 2.1 Introduction Study background and the development of the REDS conceptual framework REDS was developed in response to an unprecedented period of simultaneous rapid changes in schooling within and across countries. This was unusual in the field of international large-scale assessment (ILSA), where studies typically respond to areas of cross-national policy and research interests that have emerged and developed over periods of years, rather than months. ILSA are traditionally run according to a process in which research-based theory provides a foundation for research questions that are investigated through the description of constructs and consequent development of instruments used to measure and report outcomes. In REDS, the establishment of the theoretical foundations, elucidation of research questions, description of constructs, and instrument development took place in parallel rather than in sequence. The REDS conceptual framework was developed between mid-July and mid-August 2020. Around that time, data collection activities regarding educational responses to the pandemic within countries were being rapidly deployed, and consequent publications were also emerging,8 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION many as reports, with a view to making information available as quickly as possible. Rather than being established with reference to an existing theoretical framework, these early studies into the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on schooling were building and contributing to the theoretical framework as they were being conducted. Development of the REDS conceptual framework began with an environmental scan of existing published research (in English and German languages) relating to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on schooling. The development primarily considered research and publications from: the American Institutes for Research (Garet et al., 2020; Jackson & Garet, 2020), the National Foundation for Educational Research (Julius & Sims, 2020; Lucas et al., 2020; Sharp et al., 2020; Walker et al., 2020), the RAND Corporation (Hamilton et al., 2020), the ifo Institute (Woessmann, 2020) and Waxmann (Fickermann & Edelstein, 2020). From this work, and in consultation with national stakeholders, we identified and then began a process of classifying the emerging topics of research interest into themes. These themes were considered with reference to the REDS research questions and the REDS respondents—national centres, schools, teachers, and students. This was an iterative process. The topics of interest were grouped thematically, and the adequacy of the grouping evaluated according to the completeness of the descriptions of the themes, the fit of the individual topics within their themes, and the relevance of the themes and consequent topics to the respondent groups. Ultimately, each research theme was evaluated with respect to its overall relevance to the REDS research questions. Unlike many assessment frameworks used in ILSA, the REDS conceptual framework did not seek to describe a conceptual model to guide analyses with respect to the relationships between outcomes and contexts. Typical of ILSA assessment frameworks is the distinction between the description of the outcome variables and the conceptual model describing measurement of the context in which the outcomes are developed (see, for example, Fraillon et al., 2019; Mullis & Martin, 2017, 2019; Schulz et al., 2016). Under this broad model, outcome constructs and contextual constructs are defined and measured with a view to building an empirically-based picture of the various relationships between aspects of context and variations in outcomes. REDS was developed during an unprecedented dynamic period in which the contextual environment was constantly changing, consequently, the contextual environment was both one of the key outcomes of interest in the study, and the context for interpreting variations in respondents’ reported experiences. The primary purpose of the REDS conceptual framework was to underpin the development of questionnaire instruments that could be developed and administered quickly, with a view to providing rich and timely data on the experience of the COVID-19 school disruption. The REDS research questions REDS was conceived to collect and report data relating to the following overarching research question addressing the COVID-19 related disruptions to schooling: How were teaching and learning affected by the disruptions, and how was this mitigated by the implemented measures, across and within countries? As REDS developed, the overarching research question was further elaborated using the following four research questions described below. • Within countries, what were the education system-level responses to the COVID-19 pandemic? This question addresses content associated with the practical and organizational changes in schooling resulting from the disruption, from the perspective of national centres, school principals, teachers, and students. For example, the implementation of school closures changed approaches to teaching (e.g., the deployment of remote teaching), changed teacher contact hours, and brought forward questions on how these system-level changes were implemented. Furthermore, this section includes questions of the expectations of schools, school leaders, teachers, students, and parents during the period of the disruption. This research question is the focus of Chapter 4, Section 4.1 National contexts, which reports on results from the national contexts survey.9 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION • What were the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning, and how were these mitigated by measures at the school level? This question focuses on the impact on teaching and learning from a number of perspectives. The first relates to changes in the practical and organizational aspects of teaching and learning, such as the degree to which lessons were delivered remotely, the relative proportions of online (i.e., internet-based teaching using digital devices) or offline methods, and the provision of materials and resources to students and teachers. The second perspective relates to respondents’ experiences of the changed classroom environment as lessons were conducted with teachers and students spread across locations. Included in this are, for example, students’ and teachers’ experiences of changes in the mode and frequency of communication with each other, their personal working environment, changes in the mode and frequency of assessments, the provision of feedback to students and their families, and perceptions of the quality of student learning. This research question is addressed primarily in Chapter 4, sections 4.2 Impact of the pandemic on classroom teaching and learning, 4.3 Communication, feedback and Assessment, and 4.8 Inequalities in teaching and learning during the pandemic. • What were the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on school staff and students, and how were these mitigated by measures within countries? This question focuses on the personal experiences of the stakeholders (school teachers and students) affected by the changes in schooling during the pandemic. Included in this are, for example, questions of physical, social, and emotional well-being associated with the disruption and the levels of perceived workload and stress. The question also relates to the provision and nature of support made available for schools, teachers, and students as well as, respondents’ perceptions of the availability of and use of support. This research question is addressed primarily in Chapter 4, sections 4.4 Help and support for teaching and learning, 4.5 Well-being of students and teachers and is further addressed in Section 4.8 Inequalities in teaching and learning during the pandemic. • What did schools do to support students’ return to regular schooling, what were the persisting changes and their implications for schooling in the future? The intention of REDS has been to consider the immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on education but also with an eye to the future. This research question addresses the dual perspectives of what was happening within schools to help prepare students’ return to regular schooling, and in what ways the experience of schooling during the pandemic may positively impact future schooling. The impacts on future schooling may relate to actions taken within schools during the pandemic that respondents perceived to be positive; and reflections on the experience of managing during the pandemic may result in school systems and school communities being better prepared should similar disruptions occur in the future. Relevant to this research question are reports of the types of support made available to students and teachers for the return to regular schooling, school-level preparations and preparedness for any future similar educational disruptions, and changes in priority for aspects of student learning and welfare following the experience of the pandemic. This research question is addressed primarily in Chapter 4, sections 4.6 Transitioning students back to school and 4.7 Academic progress, preparedness for future disruptions, and persisting changes.10 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Defining the COVID-19 disruption period Explicit in the REDS overarching research question, and implicit in the four consequent research questions, is the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a period of “disruption” to regular schooling within countries. While the term disruption may be sufficient as a broad description of the period, there has been a great variety in the nature of the school responses to the pandemic across and even within countries. Consequently, the term disruption alone was not sufficient to ensure consistency of interpretations of the period across countries, within countries and across participants within countries. The solution we implemented in REDS was to operationalize the concept of the disruption as a defined “reference period”. For REDS, the reference period of the COVID-19 disruption was defined as: The first period of time in a country after the beginning of the pandemic, during which most schools were closed for the majority of students, and teaching and learning took place mostly outside of school buildings. It is important to note that the above definition does not specify dates (as they could vary across countries), nor does it specify the modes of learning (e.g., computer-delivered or otherwise) during the period. The definition hinges on the two key conditions of: i) school closures; and ii) the consequence that teaching and learning took place outside the physical location of the school. The definition includes the flexibility derived from the two qualifiers that the closures need only to apply to most schools, and that teaching and learning took place mostly outside of school buildings. This allowed for the possibility that during the disruption period, there were still some schools that remained open under some circumstances (such as for specific grade levels or for other specified groups of students). Within REDS, the period of COVID-19 disruption, (also referred to in this report as the “disruption”, “disruption period”, or “reference period”) is to be interpreted consistently according to the above definition. The term is used explicitly in aspects of the conceptual framework and questionnaire instruments, and is assumed to be understood when considering all other aspects of the study, such as when interpreting the research questions and reported outcomes. Each questionnaire included an adaptable definition of the COVID-19 disruption as part of the introduction. The definition could be adapted by national centres (to be used consistently within a country) regarding the time-period and the national characterization of the essence of most schools being mostly closed. When REDS was being developed, we had assumed that, within countries, there would be a single period of COVID-19 disruption. What subsequently transpired was that many countries experienced more than one period of disruption, with variations in the measures taken within countries across those different periods. In REDS, the definition of the period of COVID-19 disruption within countries includes the specification of the reference time-period. While we acknowledge this may not represent all periods of disruption within each country, it does, however, maximize the consistency with which respondents can reference the first period of disruption within their countries. Section 4.1 National contexts and Section 4.2 Impact of the pandemic on classroom teaching and learning present extensive details of the characteristics of the reference period within each country. Below is an example of the characterization of the period of COVID-19 disruption taken from the teacher questionnaire. The terms appearing in square brackets […] are those that the national research coordinator within each country was required to adapt according to their national context.11 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Reference period: The [COVID-19 disruption] Many questions in this survey focus on a specific time period, referenced in this questionnaire as the “[COVID-19 disruption]”. You will remember that [most] schools in [country] closed for [the majority of students] in the last school year between [choose a date or approximate time range such as “mid-March”] and [choose a date or approximate time range such as “mid-May”]. Teaching and learning occurred [mostly] outside of school buildings in this period. When responding with regard to the [COVID-19 disruption], please refer to this period. 2.2 Research themes and respondents in the REDS conceptual framework The REDS conceptual framework was structured according to the application of eight research themes applied across the four respondent groups. The eight research themes reflect perspectives that are relevant across the REDS research questions, with most themes addressing content relevant to more than one research question. Table 2.1 shows the eight REDS research themes together with the REDS questionnaire that contained content that addressed that theme. Table 2.1 shows that, while the majority of REDS themes were applicable across all instruments, themes 1 and 2 that related primarily to contextual background were to be addressed only at the most relevant levels of context—at the national and school levels—to build a picture of the overarching administrative and organizational changes during the disruption, and at the school, teacher, and student level when considering individual respondent’s background. Content associated with theme 5, teacher professional support, was not addressed from the perspective of the students. Theme 8, persisting changes following the disruption, was not addressed at the national level. In the future, there may be opportunity to collect data from national systems about the ongoing impact of changes in policy and practice during the COVID-19 pandemic on schooling, and preparedness for future disruptions. However, given the timing of the REDS data collection relative to the period of disruption and the focus within systems on real-time management of the disruption, the emphasis of this theme focused on the experiences within schools of the disruption Theme System-level School Teacher Student question question question question topics topics topics topics 1. Manifestations of the reference period within Yes Yes No No countries 2. School/teacher/student No Yes Yes Yes background 3. Impact on classroom teaching Yes Yes Yes learning 4. Assessment of student learning and provision of Yes Yes Yes Yes feedback to students 5. Teacher professional support Yes Yes Yes No 6. Home engagement/support Yes Yes Yes Yes 7. Well-being Yes Yes Yes Yes 8. Persisting changes following No Yes Yes Yes the disruption Table 2.1: REDS questionnaires that addressed the eight REDS research themes No No Yes Yes YesYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes12 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION and the perspectives of members within school communities on how the experience may affect their future practices. While it could be argued that perspectives on all themes could have been addressed in all questionnaires, we chose to limit the focus to those areas where respondents were most likely to feel able to respond and where the respondents’ perspectives were most directly relevant to the theme. The topics under each theme were shaped by the degree of influence, and relevance of experience of the respondents at each level. The focus of topics at the level of the national centre was on the nature of the system-level responses to the COVID-19 disruption, including policy responses and the provision of resources and support to schools, teachers, students, and their families. The focus of the school (principal)-level topics was on the individual school responses during the disruption period, including changed arrangements to teaching and learning programmes, expectations of teachers and students, and perceptions of the need for and provision of resourcing support associated with teaching and learning, and staff, student, and family well-being. At the level of the teachers, the focus was on teachers’ responses to the period of disruption, with respect to their teaching practices and their perceptions of the impact of the disruption on themselves and their students. The focus of the topics across the themes in the student questionnaire was on the students’ individual experiences of the changes to their schooling, both from the perspectives of changes in work practices and students’ perceptions of the personal impacts of these changes. 2.3 Description of the eight REDS research themes In this section we describe the eight REDS research themes together with the topics included at the respondent level under each theme. 1. Manifestations of the reference period within countries This theme is closely related to the research question addressing the education system-level responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The theme provides a framework for reporting of descriptive profiles of high-level national responses during the period of disruption (due to and including school closures). Questions relating to this theme were addressed to national centres and schools only. They addressed topics associated with the organizational arrangements governing school operation during the period of disruption and the degree to which schools and systems held authority over these arrangements. At the national level In order to capture the essence of the period of disruption, national centres were asked to write a continuous prose description of the reference period in their country including: key dates, school closures (including partial closures), variations in the application of requirements to schools across the country, general expectations of schools regarding remote teaching and learning, ongoing consequences for schooling in the country and aspects of practices introduced during the disruption that might inform future practices in regular schooling. National centres were further asked explicitly to report on the distribution of responsibility for establishing guidelines for teaching and learning, and the degree of autonomy schools had regarding teaching and learning at the target grade. In both cases these were asked about “in general” and “during the COVID-19 disruption”. At the school level Topics of interest at the school level focused on the organizational changes that took place during the COVID-19 disruption including the dates when schools’ normal operations were most severely disrupted. Additional topics addressed the individual school arrangements during the period of disruption, including the degree and nature of any school closure, the amount of lesson time available to students in the target grade, and the capacity of the school to deliver remote teaching to students. 2. School/teacher/student background Measuring the experience of the COVID-19 educational disruption across subgroups is one of13 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION the primary purposes of REDS. Section 4.8 Inequalities in teaching and learning during the pandemic makes use of respondent background data through the lens of inequality, however, the collection of respondent background data was also key to REDS to ensure that the REDS database contain data to support future secondary analyses of differences across subgroups. The REDS questionnaires collect background information from schools (including principals), teachers, and students. All respondents’ age and gender were measures of interest. Of specific interest regarding teachers were the subjects they taught, their years of experience teaching, and their level of seniority in their school. At the school level, principals were asked to provide information about the school size (and class sizes within the school), school management and funding structure, and school demographic profile by student socioeconomic status, special need status, language background, and single- parent background (this last category being regarded with particular relevance to the level of support that may be available in the home for students completing classes at home). Students were asked a set of questions relating to their socioeconomic status (number of books in the home, parental education, and occupation) and which language they speak at home. Additionally, students were asked questions associated with their home resources for learning, specifically the number of Information and communications technology (ICT) devices used in their home, and finally a question outlining the composition of the people who live at home with them (parents/guardians, older and younger siblings, grandparents, and others). This final question included in the framework referenced the availability of support (such as from adults or older siblings) and potential distractions (such as from a need to assist younger siblings) that students may encounter when engaging in home learning. Of additional interest were students’ experiences of using technologies for school and schoolwork before and during the period of disruption, including their ICT self-efficacy, which can contribute to students’ capacity to manage ICT-mediated learning. 3. Impact on classroom teaching and learning This research theme is closely related to the research question addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning, and how these were mitigated by measures at the school level. In developing the REDS conceptual framework, we did not make assumptions about the nature of classrooms beyond those imposed by the definition of the period of disruption, i.e., that teaching and learning mostly took place outside of school buildings for most students. We have not assumed that, for example, classes were conducted during the period of disruption remotely using computers. As such, the topics address the theme of classroom teaching and learning associated with a range of delivery modes, including ICT-based and non-ICT-based. At the national level Topics at the national level focused on the nature of resources provided to schools and students before, and during the period of disruption, as well as any associated policy expectations or requirements relating to the use of resources. At the school level At the school level, topics focused on the provision of digital infrastructure resources and support for staff and students before, and during the period of disruption, changes in time allocations for teachers to complete aspects of their work, and additional support for students with special needs, and their teachers. At the teacher level At the teacher level, topics addressed the practical aspects of teachers’ delivery of classes and teacher’s perceptions of the impact of the disruption on their classes. The practical aspects of classroom teaching included the mode of teaching (e.g., computer-based or non-computer-based), teachers’ home working circumstances that may impact on their classroom teaching, changes to teachers’ planning and delivery of curriculum in their lessons, and changes in the time spent on different teaching activities during classes. Topics relating to teachers’ perceptions of the impact of the disruption included teachers’ perceptions of changes in the quality of teaching and learning during the disruption, teachers’14 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION perceptions of their capacity to support students’ specific needs, and teachers’ perceptions of student engagement in their learning. At the student level Topics of interest at the student level related to students’ experiences of “classroom” learning, included the methods they use to communicate with teachers and classmates, how they receive or access learning materials, the nature of the learning activities they participated in, the frequency with which students used different learning materials, and their perceptions of their learning progress and the challenges associated with learning during the period of disruption. 4. Assessment of student learning and provision of feedback to students This theme is most closely related to the research question addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning, and how these were mitigated by measures at the school level, although the use of assessment information to support planning is also relevant to the two research questions addressing the impact of the pandemic on staff and students and the support for students to return to regular schooling. In the REDS conceptual framework, the assessment of student learning refers to teachers’, schools’ and systems’ capacity to make judgements of where students are in their learning (Masters, 2014), and consequently to make use of that information. Under research theme 4, assessment information is assumed to be relevant for a broad range of purposes within and across national contexts. For example, assessment information may be used by teachers to inform their teaching, provided to students to support their learning, or used by teachers, schools and systems to better understand and monitor student learning outcomes. The establishment of assessment of student learning and provision of feedback to students as a research theme includes all these possible uses of assessment information. At the national level Topics at the national level focused on the policies and practices relating to mandated assessments across learning areas, and any changes in these policies and practices associated with the disruption. At the school level Of interest in REDS was how the role of assessment was maintained and perceived during the period of disruption. At the school level, topics focused on the schools’ expectations of teachers to assess student learning outcomes with reference to a broad range of methods. In addition, there was interest in whether schools changed the nature or emphasis of assessment during the period of disruption and what expectations there were of teachers to provide feedback to students with reference to a variety of methods, including those necessitated by remote teaching and learning. At the teacher level At the teacher level, topics addressed assessment and providing feedback to students, both during the disruption, and as a comparison, before the disruption. Assessment-related topics included teachers’ perceptions of changes in their assessment practices during the period of disruption, their perceptions of the quality of the assessment information they were able to collect, and their capacity to assess the full breadth of their curriculum for all students. Topics associated with the provision of feedback to students included the method of providing feedback, the breadth of feedback, the amount of feedback, and the frequency with which feedback is provided. At the student level Students’ experiences of completing schoolwork and receiving feedback from teachers during the period of disruption were the focus of this area. Topics included students’ perceptions of15 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION the amount of work they submitted to their teachers (by subject), students’ perceptions of the type and amount of feedback they received on their schoolwork, students’ perceptions of the availability of learning support from their teachers, and students’ perceptions of their learning progress. 5. Teacher professional support The change of teaching and learning across schools brought about by the COVID-19 disruption necessitated rapid changes in teaching practices by many teachers across countries. As a consequence, a research theme in REDS was associated with the nature of professional support needed by and made available to teachers to help them adapt to the new ways of working. This research theme is most closely related to the two research questions relating to the impact of the pandemic on teaching and learning and on staff and students, however, it also is relevant to the research question associated with persisting challenges and implications for the future. At the national level At the national level, topics focused on system-level direction or guidance about teaching and learning practices during the COVID-19 disruption provided to schools and teachers, and whether specific policies or plans were developed (or already existed) regarding professional development associated with teachers use of ICT in their teaching. At the school level At the school level, topics focused on changes in teachers’ access to and use of professional support resources and opportunities associated with aspects of teaching that were likely to have been affected by the disruption (such as remote teaching pedagogy), and the degree to which the school felt supported by external people or organizations. At the teacher level Teachers were the focus of the theme relating to teacher professional support. Of interest were topics associated with teachers’ experiences of engaging in professional learning activities, before and during the disruption, and by topic and learning mode. Of additional interest were teachers’ perceptions of changes associated with the disruption in the time they spent collaborating with their peers. 6. Home engagement/support While it was not feasible in REDS to include a questionnaire for students’ parents/guardians, it was possible to collect evidence from the existing four questionnaires associated with the nature and level of engagement and support for students’ learning available to them at home. This was of particular interest given the emerging policy and research concerns relating to the potential for existing educational inequities associated with students’ access to home support and resources to be exacerbated during the period of disruption when students had limited or no physical access to their school buildings, in-person support or other learning and support resources. This research theme related in particular to the two research questions associated with the impact of the disruption on teaching and learning and on staff and students. At the national level At the national level, topics focused on the provision of any support or resources that could be used by students and their families at home to assist students working remotely (i.e., outside of school buildings). At the school level Topics at the school level focused on the schools’ means and frequency of communication with students and their families during the period of disruption, the provision of information and16 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION support to families across a range of educational and health-related topics, both before and during the period of disruption, and changes in schools’ provision of support services to families during the period of disruption. At the teacher level Of interest from teachers was the extent to which they provided support or information to students and their families about topics associated with schooling, well-being and other support services, and teachers’ perceptions of changes in the methods they use to communicate with their students’ families during the disruption in comparison to before the disruption. At the student level The questions relating to students’ background (described under research theme 2) included aspects of students’ socioeconomic status, language background, access to ICT resources, and household composition. The theme of home engagement/support when applied to students extends to include the actions of people in students’ homes that may influence students’ capacity to manage their schoolwork. Topics of interest included the availability of people in the students’ homes to help them with their schoolwork, the nature of the help that students received with their schoolwork from others, and the degree to which the students’ home environment provided space and opportunity for students to work at home. 7. Well-being At the forefront of discussions on the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on schools was, and continues to be, the impact of the changed conditions in schools on the physical, social, and emotional well-being of school staff, students, and their families. There are aspects of the changed conditions associated with well-being that are common across members of school communities, but also some that are specific to the different levels of respondent in REDS. Data collected under the well-being research theme is intended to capture an overarching picture of the factors associated with individual well-being, but also what was being done within schools and school systems to support the well-being of school staff, students, and their families. This theme relates directly to the research question addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on school staff and students, and how these were mitigated by measures within countries. At the national level Topics of focus at the national level related to the existence of centralized policy and resource support measures associated with well-being. These topics included plans or policies relating to the prevention of the spread of disease within schools, provision of additional non-teaching time for teachers to manage the changed arrangements, and collection and monitoring of data on the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on students’ and teachers’ physical and emotional well-being. At the school level At the school level, topics of interest focused on the schools’ plans and provisions of resources to support student and staff well-being. These topics included changes in the allocation of time available for teachers to complete different aspects of their work, the provision of additional support for teachers to work with students with special needs or vulnerable students, the provision of support services to school staff, changes in the provision of support services available for students, and principals’ perceptions of factors with potential deleterious effects on students. At the teacher level Topics of interest at the teacher level focused on the impact of changed working conditions for teachers on their well-being. These topics included teachers’ perceptions of aspects of their physical, social, and emotional well-being during the COVID-19 disruption, teachers’ reports of changes in the workload across aspects of their work during the disruption, and teachers’17 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION perceptions of the degree to which they felt supported by others during the disruption. At the student level At the student level, topics of interest focused on students’ access to support resources and their perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on aspects of their personal well- being. The topics at this level comprised students’ reported access and use of well-being support information from their school, students’ reported feelings of concern during the disruption, the degree to which students felt supported by and connected to their school during the disruption, students’ engagement in physical social well-being maintenance behaviours, changes to students’ family circumstances during the disruption, and the availability of and use of additional resources for students with special needs. 8. Persisting changes following the disruption This research theme is directly relevant to the research question addressing the actions of schools to support students’ return to regular schooling and the persisting changes in schools and their implications for schooling in the future. Under this theme, the potential impact of the experience of the disruption on future schooling are considered from two perspectives: i) Changes that happened during the disruption that respondents perceived to be positive and may contribute to improvements in regular schooling in the future; and ii) Changes that may result in school systems and school communities being better prepared should similar disruptions occur in the future. At the national level At the time REDS was developed, the focus of questions at the national level was on the immediate centralized response and support provided during the period of disruption. The emphasis of the research theme associated with persisting changes was on the actions taking place within schools to support the transition to regular schooling, and the perceptions of respondents within schools to what was being done. As a result, the theme of persisting changes following the disruption was not addressed at the national level in REDS. At the school level Topics of interest at the school level included principals’ perceptions of the level of preparedness for the school to engage in remote teaching in the future; actions undertaken by schools to prepare for future disruptions; changes to school policies and procedures in response to the disruption; changes in school priorities regarding teaching, learning, assessment, and well-being resulting from the disruption; principals’ beliefs about the impact of the disruption on student learning outcomes; changes of provisions to teaching and learning programmes and well-being support offered to students following the disruption to support the transition back to regular schooling. At the teacher level Topics of interest at the teacher level included teachers’ actions to support students’ transition back to regular classes, teachers’ perceptions of the impact of the disruption on students’ learning progress and students’ capacity to study, and teachers’ beliefs about the importance of a range of approaches for their teaching in the future. At the student level At the student level, topics of interest included students’ perceptions of schooling following the period of disruption, students’ perceptions of their learning skills following the disruption, and students’ feelings of preparedness to engage in learning in a similar future disruption.18 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION References Fickermann, D., & Edelstein, B. (Eds.). (2020). „Langsam vermisse ich die Schule ...“. Waxmann Verlag GmbH. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830992318 Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Duckworth, D., & Friedman, T. (2019). IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 assessment framework. Springer International Publishing. https://link. springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-19389-8 Garet, M., Rickles, J., Bowdon, J., & Heppen, J. (2020). National survey on public education’s response to COVID-19: First look brief (p. 8). American Institutes for Research (AIR). https://www.air.org/sites/default/ files/National-Survey-on-Public-Educations-Coronavirus-Pandemic-Response-First-Look-July-2020. pdf Hamilton, L. S., Grant, D., Kaufman, J. H., Diliberti, M. K., Schwartz, H. L., Hunter, G. P., Setodji, C. M., & Young, C. J. (2020). COVID-19 and the state of K–12 schools: Results and technical documentation from the spring 2020 American Educator Panels COVID-19 surveys. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/ research_reports/RRA168-1.html Jackson, D., & Garet, M. (2020). Voices of school district leaders: National survey of public education’s response to COVID-19 (p. 5). American Institutes for Research (AIR). https://www.air.org/sites/default/ files/Voices-of-School-District-Leaders-July-2020.pdf Julius, J., & Sims, D. (2020). Schools’ responses to Covid-19: Support for vulnerable pupils and the children of keyworkers (Schools’ Responses to Covid-19:). National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). https://www.nfer.ac.uk/schools-responses-to-covid-19-support-for-vulnerable-pupils-and-the-children- of-keyworkers Lucas, M., Nelson, J., & Sims, D. (2020). Schools’ responses to Covid-19: Pupil engagement in remote learning (Schools’ Responses to Covid-19, p. 40). National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). https:// www.nfer.ac.uk/schools-responses-to-covid-19-pupil-engagement-in-remote-learning Masters, G. N. (2014). Assessment: Getting to the essence. Centre for Assessment Reform and Innovation (CARI). https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ar_misc Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.). (2017). TIMSS 2019 Assessment Frameworks. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/frameworks Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.). (2019). PIRLS 2021 Assessment Frameworks. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://pirls2021.org/frameworks/ Sharp, C., Sims, D., & Rutt, S. (2020). Schools’ responses to Covid-19: Returning pupils to school (Schools’ Responses to Covid-19, p. 29). National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). https://www.nfer. ac.uk/return-of-pupils-to-school-schools-responses-to-covid-19/ Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., & Agrusti, G. (2016). IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 assessment framework. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39357-5 Walker, M., Sharp, C., & Sims, D. (2020). Schools’ responses to Covid-19: Job satisfaction and workload of teachers and senior leaders (Schools’ Responses to Covid-19). National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). https://www.nfer.ac.uk/schools-responses-to-covid-19-job-satisfaction-and- workload-of-teachers-and-senior-leaders/ Woessmann, L. (2020). Follow-up costs of not learning: What we can learn from research on coronavirus- related school closures. ifo Institute. ifo Schnelldienst, 73(06), 38–44.CHAPTER 3 Methods, procedures, and data Sebastian Meyer, Karsten Penon, Clara Wilsher Beyer, Sabine Meinck, Anja Waschk Chapter highlights This chapter comprises the methods and procedures used to collect, analyze, and report the results of REDS. • There were various technical challenges due to the survey being conducted during a global pandemic, yet, despite the challenges, 11 countries responded to a call to participate and contribute to the REDS international database. • Due to varying country situations, the questionnaires were developed and administered in both online and paper formats. Participating countries administered questionnaires to national research coordinators, school principals, teachers, and students between December 2020 to July 2021 (with some countries opting out of the teacher or student questionnaire option, see Section 3.3). • Several of the participating countries, had never taken part in an international large- scale assessment before, consequently, REDS was also a capacity and building exercise in survey administration. • Rigorous sampling, data cleaning and processing steps were a key component of REDS, with large random probability samples of schools, students, and teachers used to collect data. All school samples were selected centrally at IEA. Implementing the sampling plan was the responsibility of the national research coordinator (NRC) in each participating country (see Section 3.5). NRCs were supported in this endeavor by the Sampling Unit of IEA Hamburg. • The IEA Sampling Unit developed and provided Windows® Within-School Sampling Software (WinW3S) and data entry software to national centres, ensuring the application of state-of-the-art methodology. To ensure standardization, IEA provided comprehensive guidelines and trainings (in English and French) on survey operations procedures. It was imperative that the procedures were both feasible, given the constraints, yet also able to fulfill IEA quality requirements. • Due to the accelerated timeline and the fluid and unpredictable global context in which REDS was implemented, REDS data are subject to some limitations. A major deviation from the regular practice of implementing large-scale assessments, was that no field trial and no translation verification were conducted. Constraints on comparability were carefully considered and discussed with stakeholders, experts, and participating countries. The constraints and limitations are highlighted throughout Chapter 4 of this report.21 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION 3.1 Introduction Shortly after the start of the spread of COVID-19 around the world, multiple stakeholders in education voiced an urgent need to collect reliable and comparable survey data evaluating the impact of the pandemic on teaching and learning in a wide range of countries, and to do this as fast as possible. Usually, it takes several years to develop and implement a study of such scale. However, to accommodate the urgency to provide reliable data on the educational disruption, the period between the initiation of REDS and the writing of this report was set to one year. Implementing REDS in such a compressed timeframe was possible only by extensively streamlining measures and procedures and accepting a few shortcuts regarding the survey design, which are detailed later in this chapter. REDS adopted the IEA technical standards (Martin et al., 1999; Gregory & Martin, 2001, Wagemaker, 2020) but had to compromise some standards due to the time constraints. Similarly, some countries struggled to implement the survey according to the IEA standards, partly because of timing and partly because their education systems were under high stress due to the pandemic. In this chapter, we describe the methods and procedures implemented on the collection of the REDS data while taking into consideration the extraordinary circumstances of the survey. The potential constraints on validity and comparability are highlighted in their appropriate context. 3.2 Instrument development Based on the conceptual framework (outlined in Chapter 2), the questionnaires were developed in a collaborative approach organized by IEA and led by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), with involvement of experts from UNESCO, the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), IEA, and the participating countries. This process was facilitated through virtual meetings and rapid parallel feedback rounds on instrument drafts. REDS collected data on the following levels: • System – Questionnaire completed under the oversight of the national centre. • School – Questionnaire completed by or under the oversight of the school principal. • Teacher – Questionnaire completed by teachers. • Student – Questionnaire completed by students in the target grade. The survey instruments include the concept of a reference period (see Chapter 2 for a detailed definition of this period). This is a common anchor across all questionnaires. Respondents were asked, for many questions,2 to provide responses about their experience within the reference period and then to compare this experience to regular schooling. This approach was established as a way of asking questions about the time of disruption that is entirely inclusive of all the different forms of educational disruptions across countries. Because teachers may have been teaching multiple subjects, classes, and grades during the COVID-19 disruption, each teacher was asked to focus their answers on a target class. Target classes were defined as the subject that they taught most in the target grade during the COVID-19 disruption. 3.3 Target populations REDS comprised three different target populations: students, teachers, and schools. Not all countries covered all three populations: India and Uruguay did not survey students, and Rwanda focused exclusively on schools. 2 There were also questions unrelated to the reference period, e.g., questions about the present time, or about persisting changes after transitioning back to school.22 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Students The student target population was defined as all students enrolled in the grade that represents eight years of schooling, counting from the first year of ISCED level 1.3 Note that in most countries, the academic year changed between the reference period and the survey administration period. Hence, grade 8 students reflected on a situation they experienced in their seventh grade, whenever questions referred to the reference period.4 Teachers The teacher target population consisted of all teachers who had taught students of the target population during the reference period and were still teaching at the same schools during survey administration. Schools The school target population comprised those schools where students of the above-described target population could be found. School principals responded to a questionnaire focusing on school-level responses on the educational disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 3.4 Sampling design and implementation The international sampling strategy of REDS was a two-stage stratified random sample design with schools as the first sampling stage, and students and teachers as the second sampling stage. In most countries, the selection probability of schools was proportional to the number of target grade students, aiming for self-weighted samples of students (Meinck, 2020). India and the Russian Federation required additional sampling stages (regional units)5. For some countries, pre-existing samples from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2022, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2019, or International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2018 were used to reduce the time needed for sampling activities (see Appendix A1, Table A1.1). While REDS aimed for full coverage of the target populations, countries could decide to exclude specific types of schools or students from the survey (see Table 3.2 and Table A1.2 for details). Stratification was used to improve the efficiency of the samples and to facilitate analyses by certain groups of schools. Commonly used stratification variables were urbanization, type of funding, and region. The variables used for stratification are shown in Appendix A1, Table A1.3. The minimum school sample size was set to 150 schools per country. Using the WinW3S software certified and provided by IEA, within each participating school, 20 students and 20 teachers were randomly sampled from eligible individuals. In cases where there were fewer eligible students or teachers, all were selected. Denmark and Slovenia used a different within-school sampling approach for their students: they randomly selected a grade 8 class and within the selected class all students were asked to participate. Student data were collected in eight countries, teacher data in ten countries and school data in all eleven countries (Table 3.1 and Table A1.4) resulting in achieved samples of 21,063 students, 15,004 teachers and 1,581 principals. 3 The International Standard Classification of Education was developed by the UNESCO. More information can be found on http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of- education-isced-2011-en.pdf 4 In Kenya, the academic year had been extended as a reaction to the interruptions caused by COVID-19. Therefore, students in grade 7 during survey administration had already been in grade 7 during the reference period. 5 This was necessary to keep budgetary burden for data collection reasonably low.23 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION The data collected in all countries have been adjudicated by external experts in relation to threats to representativeness. Data meeting the expectations6 were weighted to account for unequal selection probabilities caused by the sampling design. Non-response adjustments were computed to make up for non-participating units. Weights and adjustments were computed following standards specified in other large-scale assessments (Meinck, 2020), specifically those established in IEA’s International Computer and Information Literacy Study. Readers are advised to refer to Chapter 7 of the ICILS Technical Report (Fraillon et al., 2020) for details. Any analyses presented in this report referring to the data that met expectations used total weights to achieve unbiased estimates of the population features. Data not meeting the expectations remained unweighted, inferences to populations are not recommended. Further details about the sampling design, the weighting procedure, and participation rates can be found in Appendix A1. Remarks concerning validity related to sampling yield and procedures will be presented in the last section of this chapter. 3.5 Data collection The administration of REDS depended to a large extent on the contributions of the survey’s national research coordinators and their staff. The IEA developed a set of procedures to assist NRCs with implementing the survey, with the goal to aid NRCs in the uniformity of their questionnaire administration activities. IEA designed these procedures to be flexible enough to simultaneously meet the needs of individual participants and adhere to IEA survey standards. The team began by referring to the procedures used in other IEA studies, such as IEA’s Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), TIMSS, ICCS, and ICILS, and then tailored these procedures to suit the specific requirements of REDS. All national centres received guidelines on the survey operations procedures for each stage of the survey. The guidelines included advice on contacting schools, listing and sampling students or classes, preparing materials for data collection, administering the survey, and creating data files. Country Responding Responding Responding students teachers principals Notes: n/a = The country did not administer questionnaires to this target population. Burkina Faso 2 474 992 138 Denmark 1 431 458 60 Ethiopia 3 621 1 719 186 India n/a 859 184 Kenya 1 570 773 102 Russian Federation 3 516 2 834 192 Rwanda n/a n/a 149 Slovenia 2 552 1 422 135 United Arab Emirates 2 988 2 661 172 Uruguay n/a 713 113 Uzbekistan 2 911 2 573 150 Table 3.1: Achieved sample sizes 6 Participation rates needed to be 65% or above per selection stage, rates below 65% were deemed unacceptable. Samples needed to be achieved by approved sampling procedures, samples achieved by unapproved sampling procedures were deemed unacceptable.24 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION The role of the national research coordinators and their national centres One of the first steps that all countries or education systems participating in REDS had to take when establishing the survey in their country was to appoint an NRC. The NRC acted as the main contact person for all those involved in REDS within the country and was the country representative at the international level. NRCs oversaw the overall implementation of the survey at the national level. They also, where necessary, implemented and adapted the internationally agreed-upon procedures to their national context under the guidance of the international project staff and national experts. To facilitate successful administration of REDS, the international team required the establishment of school coordinators within countries. Their work focused on preparing for and administering the data collection. The role of the school coordinators National centres identified and trained school coordinators for all participating schools. The school coordinator could be a teacher or other staff member in the school. In some cases, national centres appointed external individuals as school coordinators. The coordinators’ responsibilities included: • identifying eligible students/classes and teachers belonging to the target population to allow the national centre to perform within-school sampling; • arranging the date(s) and modalities of the survey administration with the national centre; • distributing questionnaires/cover letters with login details for the online questionnaires; • working with the school principal and the effected teachers to plan and administer the student survey; and • for paper-based survey administration: ensuring that all questionnaires are returned after the survey. Manuals and documentation The international study team released guidelines for the survey operations procedures to the NRCs in seven units. The material was organized and distributed chronologically according to the stages of the study. The seven units and their accompanying software packages were: 1. The General Guidelines, which provided general information on the survey and described the roles and responsibilities of NRCs and the national staff. 2. The School Coordinator Manual (subject to translation), which described the role and responsibilities of the school coordinator. 3. The IEA Within-School Sampling Manual, which guided national centre staff through the activities within the national centre when working with the within-school sampling and tracking software (WinW3S). 4. The Guidelines for Working with Schools, which contained information about how to work with schools to plan for successful administration of the REDS questionnaires. 5. The Guidelines for Instrument Preparation, which described the processes involved in preparing the REDS questionnaires for production and use in the countries. 6. The IEA Online Survey System Manual, which described the procedures of creating online questionnaires. 7. The Guidelines for Data Capture Procedures, which contained the description of post-data collection activities.25 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Software The international project team also supplied NRCs with software packages to assist with data collection. The software packages were: • IEA Windows® Within-School Sampling Software (IEA WinW3S): This enabled the national centres to select students and teachers in each sampled school in agreement with sample design specifications and mandatory sampling algorithms. National centres further used WinW3S to track school, teacher, and student information; prepare the survey tracking forms; and assign questionnaires to students and teachers. • IEA Online Survey System (IEA OSS): This software enabled verified text passages in the questionnaires to be transferred from the IEA translation system to online questionnaires, with these online versions then delivered to respondents. • IEA Data Management Expert (IEA DME): This software facilitated the entering of paper questionnaire data. The IEA DME also allowed national adaptations to be made to the questionnaires and provided a set of data quality control checks. In addition to preparing the software and manuals, IEA conducted data-management trainings designed to train national centre staff in required software programmes and procedures, i.e., IEA WinW3S and IEA DME. Working with schools In REDS, the within-school sampling process required close cooperation between the national centre and representatives from the schools. Figure 3.1 presents the major activities the national centres conducted when working with schools to list and sample students and teachers, track respondents, prepare for survey administration, and collect data. NRCs were responsible for contacting the schools and encouraging them to take part in the survey, a process that often involved obtaining support from national or regional educational authorities or other stakeholders, depending on the national context. Delivery modes By default, REDS stipulated the administration of the questionnaires online using the IEA Online Survey System (IEA OSS) software. The electronic versions of the REDS school, teacher, and student questionnaires could only be completed via the internet. Accordingly, the design ensured that online respondents needed only an internet connection and a standard internet browser. No additional software or particular operating system was required. During the administration period, respondents could log in and out as many times as they needed and could resume answering the questionnaire at the question they had last responded to in their previous session. Answers were automatically saved whenever respondents moved to another question, and respondents could change any answer at any time before completing the questionnaire. During the administration, the national centre was available for support; the centre, in turn, could contact IEA if unable to solve a problem locally. Responses to the online questionnaires were not made mandatory, evaluated, or enforced in detail (e.g., using hard validations). Instead, some questions used soft validation, such as respondents being asked to give numerical responses to questions that had a minimum and maximum value—for example, the total number of students enrolled in a school. Because the national centres were able to monitor the responses to the online questionnaires in real-time, they could send reminders to those schools which had respondents that had not responded in the expected period. Typically, in these cases, the national centres asked the school coordinators to follow up with those individuals who had not responded. Although countries using the online mode in REDS faced parallel workload and complexity before and during the data collection, they had the benefit of a reduction in workload afterwards. Because answers to online questionnaires were already in an electronic format and stored on servers maintained by IEA, there was no need for separate data entry.26 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Track school information • Update school information, merge/obtain contact information • Initialize WinW3S: provide key complete database information, import school sample database provided by IEA, translate and/or adapt survey tracking forms (e.g., Student Listing Form) • Record sampled school’s participation status, use replacement, if necessary • Create Student Listing Forms and Teacher Listing Forms (printed or electronic) and send to school coordinators for completion NATIONAL CENTRE Within-School Listing • School coordinator lists all in-scope students on the Student Listing Form • School coordinator lists all in-scope teachers on the Teacher Listing Form • School coordinator sends the completed forms back to the national centre SCHOOLS Figure 3.1: Major activities conducted by national centres when working with schools Sample students and teachers • Manually enter counts from Student Listing and/or Teacher Listing Forms (number of students and teachers), create student and/ or teacher records and enter information OR: • Import Student Listing and/or Teacher Listing Forms directly • Sample teachers • Generate Teacher Tracking Forms • Sample students • Generate Student Tracking Forms (paper and/or online) • Print instrument labels for school, teacher, and student questionnaires and/or online questionnaire cover letters • Send tracking forms and labeled survey instruments to schools Survey Administration • School coordinators track student participation on Student Tracking Forms • School coordinators track teacher participation on Teacher Tracking Forms • School coordinators send the completed questionnaires and forms back to the national centre (if paper questionnaires were administered) Track student and teacher participation status • Monitor online questionnaire participation rates • Import/enter student participation information from Student Tracking Forms • Import/enter teacher participation information from Teacher Tracking Forms Data entry and verification • Manual data entry from completed paper questionnaires (if applicable) • Check participation against data availability • Submit data to IEA27 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION In some countries, the administration of online questionnaires was not feasible. The most frequently mentioned reason related to reduced internet accessibility. In these cases, schools were provided with paper questionnaires that were either administered by the school coordinator, or by data collectors hired by the national centre. The completed questionnaires were shipped back to the national centre where they were digitized, i.e., entered into a database. The IEA provided all countries with its Data Management Expert (DME), a software used for manual data entry in all IEA and several non-IEA studies (e.g., PISA). The software also includes a data verification and statistics module. 3.6 Data cleaning The cleaning procedures used in ICILS were applied as a basis for the REDS study; accordingly, text passages from ICILS 2018 Technical Report (Schulz, 2020) were used as appropriate and are highlighted in the following section. Preparing the REDS international database and ensuring its integrity was a complex endeavor, requiring extensive collaboration between IEA and the national centres. National centres in each participating country were responsible for submitting their national REDS data files to IEA. Depending on the delivery mode, once each country had either created their data files and submitted them to IEA (in the case of paper-administered questionnaires) or confirmed that their online data collection window had closed (in the case of online-administered questionnaires, in which case the IEA downloaded them from the central international server), data cleaning began. Data cleaning is an extensive process of checking data for inconsistencies and formatting the data to create a standardized output. The main goals of the data cleaning process were to ensure that: • All information in the database conformed to the internationally defined data structure. • The content of all codebooks and documentation appropriately reflected national adaptations to the questionnaires. • All variables used for international comparisons were comparable across countries (after harmonization where necessary). • All institutions involved in this process applied quality control measures throughout to assure the quality and accuracy of the REDS data. Confirming the integrity of the national databases The steps taken to ensure the integrity of the national databases varied according to the delivery mode and questionnaires administered. In each country that administered online questionnaires, the national centre sent confirmation to IEA that their data collection window had closed and that the data were ready to be downloaded from the central international server. IEA then downloaded raw data from the server. In each country that administered paper questionnaires, the completed instruments were entered into the DME and then exported for submission to IEA. IEA then subjected these data to a comprehensive process of checking and editing, conducting the standardized cleaning procedures upon data and documentation submission. IEA first imported and checked the data files provided by each country, and then applied a set of cleaning rules to verify the validity and consistency of the data, documenting any deviations from the international file structure. Having completed these steps, IEA staff sent cleaning queries to the national centres. These required the centres to either confirm the IEA’s proposed data-editing actions or provide additional information to resolve inconsistencies. After all modifications had been applied, IEA rechecked all datasets. This process of editing the data, checking the reports, and implementing corrections was repeated as many times as necessary to help ensure that data were consistent within and comparable across countries. Once the national databases had been verified and formatted according to international file formats, IEA produced data files containing information on the participation status of schools, students, and teachers in each country’s sample. IEA then used this information, together with data captured by the software designed to standardize operations and tasks, to calculate sampling weights, population coverage, and school, teacher, and student participation rates. Appendix A128 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION provides details about the weighting procedures. Data cleaning quality control Because REDS was a complex survey with high standards for data quality, maintaining these standards required an extensive set of interrelated data checking and data cleaning procedures. To ensure all procedures were conducted in the correct sequence, that no special requirements were overlooked, and that the cleaning process was implemented independently of the persons in charge, the data quality control included the following steps: • thorough testing of all data cleaning programmes, • registering all incoming data and documents in a specific database, • carrying out data cleaning according to strict rules, avoiding deviations from the cleaning sequence, • documenting all systematic data recordings that applied to all countries: recorded in the REDS General Cleaning Documentation, • logging every “manual” correction to a country’s data files in a recoding script, • repeating the data cleaning process, on completion of data cleaning for a country, and • working closely with national centres at various steps of the cleaning process. IEA compared national adaptations recorded in the documentation for the national datasets against the structure of the submitted national data files. IEA then recorded any identified deviations from the international data structure in the national adaptation database and in the REDS User Guide for the International Database. Whenever possible, IEA recoded national deviations to ensure consistency with the international data structure. However, if international comparability could not be guaranteed, IEA removed the corresponding data from the international database. Prior to reporting the results, IEA reviewed key diagnostic statistics for each questionnaire variable to evaluate its plausibility across the participating countries. This variable-by-variable, country- by-country review used to detect unusual item properties or anomalous patterns played a crucial role in the quality assurance of the REDS data. Finding a faulty variable this late in the process is rare, but an unusual distribution could indicate a potential problem with either translation or printing. If such a variable was found, the country’s questionnaire production documents (e.g., National Adaptation Forms) and printed questionnaires were examined for flaws or inaccuracies and, if necessary, the variable was removed from the international database for that country, and results omitted in this report. Following the reviewing of variable statistics, the international REDS team met with external experts in August 2021 to conduct a formal adjudication of the data in preparation of the table production and report writing. During that meeting, decisions were made about any modifications needed to the data or if further analyses were required. Country reports about translation errors, printing issues, or other technical concerns were referenced. As a result of this process, the data were stabilized, and reporting and annotation schemes were agreed upon that would make readers aware of potential issues with the data. 3.7 Statistical analysis methods As described above, REDS employed complex sampling procedures to obtain the school, student, and teacher samples, leading to unequal selection probabilities of the surveyed individuals. Total weights have been computed to account for this effect of the design and were used for any analysis presented in this report, allowing for obtaining unbiased estimates of population features (Lohr, 1999). Moreover, it is not appropriate to apply formulae pertaining to simple random samples for obtaining standard errors for population estimates if data originates from complex samples. Replication (re-sampling) techniques provide tools to estimate the sampling variance of population estimates more appropriately for these samples (Gonzalez and Foy 2000). For REDS, we used the jackknife repeated replication (JRR) technique to compute standard errors for population29 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION means, percentages, and any other population statistic (Wolter, 1985). To prepare datasets for this technique, primary sampling units were paired into variance zones following the approach outlined in ICILS (Schulz, 2020). Schools were the primary sampling units in all countries except the Russian Federation and India, where regional units comprised the first sampling stage. Standard statistical software does not always include procedures for estimating population features and their sampling variance based on data from complex samples. For REDS, we mainly used the IEA International Database (IDB) Analyzer. This software takes the complex data structure automatically into account by using sampling weights for accurate estimation of population features, and by applying the JRR method for accurate estimation of standard errors. For the analysis presented in Chapter 4, Section 4.8, we used R macros developed by IEA, also accounting for the REDS design. 3.8 Limitations of REDS Unlike other IEA surveys, REDS had to be prepared in a short period of time and was implemented in the midst of a global context that was a considerable challenge for survey administration. This situation led to constraints on the comparability and representativeness of the REDS data and are detailed in the following section. Instrument development Normally, the production of the international version of the survey instruments is an endeavor that can take up to a year, a time span not available to the REDS international consortium. Instead, the first version of the international questionnaires was compiled in the months of September and October 2020. This was done while the recruitment of additional participants was ongoing. The questionnaires required small adjustments to increase relevance for countries in which remote online teaching was not possible. This led to two slightly different versions of the questionnaires (see REDS User Guide). All countries’ national adaptations have been verified by IEA to ensure the international comparability of all country data. However, it was not feasible to conduct a proper independent verification of each country’s translation by trained or certified verifiers, as usually done in other IEA studies. It was also not possible to verify the layout of the national questionnaires by the international consortium within the given timeframe. Nevertheless, this did not mean that countries were left without advice during the preparatory phase. During each step of the process, countries were offered help whenever needed. In countries with little or no experience in conducting large-scale surveys, the consortium offered regular catch-up calls, which were used extensively. Data collection The urgency of data collection made it necessary to accept some compromises with regard to the usual procedures followed in IEA surveys, as specified in Wagemaker, 2020. In other IEA studies, procedures are trialed, staff are trained in a dedicated field trial phase, and items and response categories are tested and revised based on data collected from a small but robust sample of schools and individuals. The truncated REDS timeline prevented a full field trial data collection phase. Furthermore, while the data collection period for the entire study stretched over eight months from December 2020 to July 2021, data were collected within three months for all countries except Denmark.7 Considering the concept of the reference period introduced in Chapter 2, this means that for some REDS respondents (principals, teachers, and/or students), the referenced period may have been further in the past than for others. The exact time spans of the reference period and the data collection period is displayed in Chapter 4, Section 4.1 for each country. 7 An exception was Denmark where data collection stretched from 14 December 2020 to 5 April 2021 to ensure high response rates despite repeated school closures.30 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Monitoring quality An international quality control monitoring programme that included school visits was not feasible due to the pandemic. Non-conformity of survey administration and reference period In IEA surveys, respondents are usually asked about their experiences at present or in a very recent past. This was not necessarily true for REDS, because, at the time the survey was administered, the challenges caused by the pandemic during the reference period (i.e., the initial period of disruptions) may have had already transpired or been superimposed by later disruptions and the rapid developments in between those time points. Respondents however were asked about what they had experienced during that initial time of disruptions. We cannot disentangle from the data whether, and if so, to what amount, responses have been blurred by these later experiences. Further, the length and position of the reference and data collection periods within the school year differs between countries. Repeated increases of COVID-19 infection rates during December 2020 and June/July 2021, caused repeated school closures, leading to prolonged or postponed data collection. Detailed information on the reference period, the data collection period, and on the school year, can be found for all countries in Chapter 4, Section 4.1. Within-school sampling The IEA usually requests that all study participants strictly follow all operations procedures, as stipulated by several survey operations procedures units. For example, countries must not use any other software packages than the ones provided by the IEA for key activities of the survey. However, to accommodate the specific national circumstances, the consortium allowed three countries—Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya—to deviate from the defined within-school sampling procedures. By default, all countries were required to use the IEA’s WinW3S software for sampling teachers and students. Proper usage of the software, however, required that national centres get in touch with schools more than once (see Figure 3.1), which was not feasible for the above-mentioned countries. They therefore opted for within-school sampling procedures outside the software that allowed them to contact schools only once. The employed procedures included a lottery on the day of survey implementation to select the within-school sample, leaving out absent students. Sampling teachers within schools was not necessary in the concerned countries, since all eligible teachers were surveyed. Only those teachers present at the day of the survey were considered. National centres could not provide information on the number of absent students and teachers, preventing accurate computation of selection probabilities, sampling weights, and participation rates. Hence, results based on student and teacher data in these countries represent only the experiences and opinions of the respondents and should not be used to infer on the target populations. This constraint is marked in all chapters presenting REDS results. Data remained unweighted and is reported without standard errors. Exclusion rates REDS aimed to fully cover the target populations in all countries. However, due to specific circumstances in the participating countries, it was not feasible to access all eligible students, teachers, and schools. Therefore, the national survey population had to be restricted in many countries. Affected schools, students, and teachers were removed from sampling frames prior to sample selection, i.e., had no chance of being selected for REDS. Hence, any outcome of REDS can only be representative for schools and individuals that were not excluded. Types of excluded schools per country are listed in Appendix A1, Table A1.2; exclusion rates are listed in Table 3.2. The exclusion rates reached significant levels in some of the countries. Differences between the surveyed population and the internationally defined target population are more likely in countries with high exclusion rates. Rates exceeding 5% were annotated in all tables presenting related results in this report. Participation rates Achieving high participation rates is key in any large-scale survey, though challenging already under31 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION “normal” conditions (Meinck, Cortes & Tieck, 2017). The pandemic caused specific challenges on this aspect of REDS. The period between the end of year 2020 until the middle of year 2021 was marked by new outbreaks of COVID-19 in the participating countries, resulting in schools closing repeatedly, at least for some of the time in some surveyed regions, making it difficult to reach sampled schools and individuals. Some countries suffered from low participation rates, especially at the school level and with teachers within schools. Overall participation rates ranged from 38% to close to 100% in the student survey, 27% to almost 100% in the teacher survey, and 40% to 100% in the school survey. Detailed participation rates for all countries are given in Appendix A1, Tables A1.5 to A1.9. Low participation rates can result in non-response bias under specific conditions. This is when relatively high levels of non-participation rates are combined with a relatively large difference between respondents and non-respondents in the variables of interest. If these conditions apply, there is a lack of representativeness of respondents for the underlying populations for the variable of interest. This risk may be larger for REDS than for other surveys, at least with respect to specific variables. Non-response might be directly related to the effects of the pandemic, for example, students might have been frightened to go to school because of the risk of infection and could therefore not be contacted to participate in the survey. Others may have not been reached because of a lack of electronic devices, a problem that may also have been applied to teachers or even school principals. These individuals may have likely responded systematically differently to parts of the REDS survey questionnaires, for example regarding their access to online learning. Weighting, especially non-response adjustments, tries to minimize the risk of non-response bias, but cannot be as efficient as sufficient participation rates. Participation rates below 85% per level (schools, teachers, and students within schools) or combined participation rates across levels of less than 75% are annotated in this report. Further, Denmark experienced particularly low participation rates for schools, students, and teachers, and Uruguay experienced particularly low participation rates for teachers. This data were therefore considered to carry high risks of bias and remained unweighted. Respondents represent only themselves, their data are accordingly interpreted in this report, and it is not recommended to infer from these samples on the respective target populations. Standard error All estimates of population features presented in this report are provided together with their standard errors. Higher standard errors indicate a higher level of impreciseness, or uncertainty, of the estimate. Country Students Teachers Schools Notes: n/a = The country did not administer questionnaires to this target population. Burkina Faso 3.2 3.2 2.4 Denmark 3.9 5.9 16.0 Ethiopia 7.4 7.7 6.6 India n/a 0.0 0.0 Kenya 16.0 16.0 29.3 Russian Federation 10.3 9.5 11.2 Rwanda n/a n/a 0.0 Slovenia 2.9 2.4 9.9 United Arab Emirates 1.1 1.1 3.0 Uruguay n/a 0.8 9.1 Uzbekistan 12.0 4.0 5.9 Table 3.2: Exclusion rates (%)32 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION For REDS, some standard errors are higher than usually found in IEA surveys. The following factors caused decreased sampling efficiency: • additional cluster sampling stages needed in India and the Russian Federation beyond the regular two-stage sampling design, • the occurrence of low sample sizes due to the small numbers of students or teachers within schools, and • low participation rates contributing to low achieved sample sizes. Readers of the report need to be aware that notable differences between estimates might not be significant if standard errors are high; in this case, differences might solely be caused by the random selection of participants. References Gonzalez, E.J., & Foy, P. (2000). Estimation of sampling variance. In M. O. Martin, K. D. Gregory, & S. E. Stemler (Eds.), TIMSS 1999: Technical Report (pp 203− 222). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. https://timss.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/T99_TR_Chap12.pdf Gregory, K.D., & Martin, M.O. (2001). Technical standards for IEA studies: an annotated bibliography. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/ publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/technical-standards-iea-studies Lohr, S.L. (1999) Sampling: Design and Analysis. Duxbury Press. Martin, M.O., Rust, K., & Adams, R.J. (1999). Technical standards for IEA studies. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/publications/iea-reference/ technical-standards-iea-studies Meinck, S., Cortes, D., Tieck, S. (2017). Evaluating the risk of nonresponse bias in educational large-scale assessments with school nonresponse questionnaires: a theoretical study. Large-scale Assessments in Education 5:3, 1−21. http://rdcu.be/oVhH Meinck, S. (2020). Sampling, weighting, and variance estimation. In H. Wagemaker (Ed.), Reliability and validity of international large-scale assessment. Understanding IEA’s comparative studies of student achievement (pp. 113−129). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53081-5 Schulz, W. (2020). The reporting of ICILS 2018 results. In Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (Eds.), IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 Technical Report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/ publications/technical-reports/icils-2018-technical-report Wagemaker, H. (2020, Eds.). Reliability and validity of international large-scale assessment. Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53081-5 Wolter, K.M. (1985). Introduction to variance estimation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387- 35099-8CHAPTER 4 International findings 4.1 National contexts Agnes Stancel-Piątak, Emilie Franck, Alec I. Kennedy 4.1 Introduction The ways education systems have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic were anchored in their local national contexts, and shaped, by the consequent guidance provided at the national level. Within countries, schools have different levels of responsibility and freedom for decision-making, depending on the level of centralization of the relevant education system (or systems). This section addresses the REDS research question: Within countries, what were the education system- level responses to the COVID-19 pandemic? and provides insights into system-level measures taken in REDS countries to guide and support principals and teachers during the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It draws on the information provided by the NRCs collected via the national questionnaire as well as during an additional review round and supplemented by data obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO). Section highlights The section provides insights into system-level measures taken in REDS countries to guide and support principals and teachers during the school disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It draws on the information provided by the national research coordinators (NRC), supplemented by the data obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO) homepage. The length of the reference period varied across and within countries. • In most countries, the reference period lasted more than 7 months. • In Denmark, India, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, the United Arab Emirates, and Uruguay, the length of school closures varied within country, with some grade levels, schools, or regions allowed to reopen earlier than others. All countries participating in REDS, created policy and/or guideline documents to assist schools in responding to the COVID-19 disruption, including measures to ensure pedagogical continuity and hygiene measures for the eventual return to school. • In decentralized school systems (e.g., Denmark), schools had the freedom to decide on the learning plans implemented during the disruption. • In more centralized education systems, there was less freedom to deviate from required measures. However, in some countries, greater autonomy was granted to schools to adapt measures to their specific context (e.g., Rwanda, Slovenia, and Uruguay). • In many of the countries with longer disruption periods, assessments had to be postponed. Several resources were made available to schools to support learning during school closures. • While the availability of digital resources varied across countries prior to the COVID-19 disruption, all countries made them available during school closures, if possible, either by strengthening existing infrastructures or designing new materials. • A number of countries noted that when students had limited access to digital materials, other resources were made available (e.g., paper-based materials, television, or radio broadcasts).35 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION In contrast to other sections in the REDS report, the results from the country questionnaire are presented separately for each country, providing a frame for the interpretation of the comparative results reported in other sections of this report. Countries' overviews reported in this section describe the national policy advice and expectations associated with practical and organizational changes in schooling resulting from the disruption. It pertains, for example, to the implementation of school closures in countries. A major topic is the policy guidance on approaches to teaching (such as remote teaching) as well as with respect to changes to teacher contact hours. The data presented were reported by the national centres. Further sections will elaborate on principals’ and teachers’ views on these topics. Importantly, this section provides detailed information on the country specific reference period as defined in Chapter 2 of this report. The reference period was used to establish the time-period within each country that respondents were to consider when answering the questions. It was broadly defined as the first period experienced within each country when, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most schools were closed to the majority of students. In some education systems, school holidays took place during the reference period (see Appendix A2, Table A2.1), which might have had an indirect impact on the actual duration of the school disruption. A detailed discussion of the definition of the reference period is included in Chapter 2. The information on the reference period is supplemented by the number of positive tested cases recorded in each of the countries between January 2020 and July 2021. As the numbers obtained from the WHO home page (WHO, 2021) are not adjusted by the number of tested persons or the number of false positive and negative cases, they should not be interpreted as infection rates of the real COVID-19 cases, but rather provide insights on the empirical basis that governments had access to for their decision-making process. It can be assumed that, in many cases, school closures were not solely related to the number of positive cases, but, presumably, rather to other political and global events. The specific concepts reviewed in the countries’ overview pertain to centralization and accountability mechanisms, provision of resources and professional development to support remote learning and teaching, and social distancing and hygiene measures that were developed and implemented during the reference period for possible school re-opening. The concept of centralization is often researched in combination with the concept of accountability. International studies imply that higher degrees of school autonomy combined with higher degrees of accountability improve educational outcomes such as performance (Parveva et al., 2020). In some education systems, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the autonomy and accountability mechanisms countries usually have in place. Consequently, those differences are made explicit in this section by providing a comparative view on the autonomy and accountability mechanisms prior and during the COVID-19 pandemic as reported by the national research coordinators. Burkina Faso The COVID-19 situation in Burkina Faso and its impact on the education system In February 2020, Burkina Faso reported its first case of COVID-19. Starting in mid-March, the government banned the physical attendance of students in all schools. Schools remained closed for most students until the end of June (the end of the academic school year for 2019-2020). The number of people testing positive remained stable at a low level during the entire school disruption period. Students were allowed to return to schools at the start of the new school year (October 2020, Figure 4.1.1). The re-opening of schools in October coincided with a substantial increase in the number of people testing positive in December and January. The number of people testing positive decreased substantially after January 2021. The reference period in Burkina Faso consisted of 7.5 months of school disruption (see Figure 4.1.1). School closure rules were taken at the national level, meaning that they applied to all schools in the country. The regular summer holidays start at the beginning of July and last until October, however, the 2019-2020 school year was prolonged by a month, while the school year 2020-2021 started a few weeks earlier (mid-September), meaning the summer holiday period was reduced by about two months in total.36 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Centralization and accountability in Burkina Faso Burkina Faso can be characterized as a centralized education system as the national Ministry of Education is primarily responsible for providing schools with guidance and directions concerning teaching and learning practices. More precisely, the Ministry of Education provides instructions to the different regional governments, which are then passed on to the individual provinces within that region who are responsible for overseeing the schools. This did not change during the COVID-19 disruption. Only private schools gained slightly more autonomy to decide on teaching and learning practices during the pandemic. During the school disruption, the final examinations were deferred by almost one month (from mid-July to the end of July). Other than that, there were no planned assessments in Burkina Faso, neither were additional assessments organized to follow up on student learning progress and attendance nor on students’/teachers’ emotional and physical health. Figure 4.1.1: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Burkina Faso Provision of resources and professional development The Ministry of Education provided all schools with, amongst others, “a response plan regarding educational continuity” that gave guidance and directions on how to continue teaching and learning during the COVID-19 disruption (Ministry of Education, 2020). The main resources schools were provided with to facilitate remote learning were radio transmissions, television broadcasts (accessible via the website of the Ministry of Education), and paper-based materials. The first two of these were already available to schools before the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the paper-based resources were mainly introduced and provided to schools during the pandemic. The Response Plan prepared by the Ministry of Education (2020) explicitly addressed the need to provide schools and teachers with digital resources and support measures that could enable them to develop remote learning strategies. These included the provision of computer equipment and other ICT resources, internet connectivity, video conferencing software, and support for teachers on how to use the resources and develop digital learning materials. The provision of formal support for the development of digital resources for education was a direct response to the COVID-19 disruption. Furthermore, teachers were strongly encouraged to collaborate with each other during the pandemic. Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); World Health Organization (WHO, 2021); United Nations (UN, 2019). Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Total population: 20,903,278; GDP per capita (current US$): 787 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 0.36% 2020 2021 End of school year Beginning of school year Number of people testing positive School closure: mid Mar. - beginning Oct. 2020 Data collection period: 28 Apr. 2021 - 18 Jun. 202137 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling The Ministry of Education provided schools with a number of health and safety guidelines as they made plans to reopen for physical attendance. These included expanding the hygiene facilities (soap/sanitizer), increasing cleaning on school premises, enforcing social distancing between students and adults, and providing the option of continued remote learning for students. Denmark COVID-19 situation in Denmark and its impact on the education system On February 26, 2020, the first Danish citizen tested positive for COVID-19. Denmark reacted quickly to stop the spread of the virus, enacting several lockdown measures, including the closure of schools affecting all grades starting on March 16. On April 15, this rule was adjusted, allowing students from grades 0-5 to attend schools physically. Approximately a month later, all students were allowed to go back to schools on May 18. The decision to reopen schools was made partly out of concern for children’s learning and wellbeing, concern for parents’ ability to work, and because of the relatively low number of people testing positive (see Figure 4.1.2). On December 16, 2020, schools were again closed for physical attendance due to the rising number of people testing positive, hitting its highest point in December, with 1.4% of the population testing positive. During this time, teachers were asked to conduct their courses remotely, as they were doing during the first closure period. Students from grades 0-4 were allowed to return to school on February 8, 2021, while remote learning continued for students in higher grades until March 19, 2021. The reference period in Denmark is defined as the first lockdown, lasting slightly more than 2 months (see Figure 4.1.2). School closure rules were taken at the national level and applied to all schools. However, the rules were broad, allowing space for individual schools to interpret them to their context. Centralization and accountability in Denmark Denmark is known as a decentralized education system, meaning that compared to a centralized system, schools have a greater degree of discretion to establish guidance and directions concerning teaching and learning at school (OECD, 2017). This did not change during the COVID-19 disruption, and schools continued to operate autonomously. The Ministry of Education developed an executive order regarding emergency teaching, in which it is stated that the institution or school must organize emergency teaching according to the individual student’s needs, to the best extent possible. Hence, each school was able to decide how to best handle their situation. Despite the COVID-19 disruption, schools in Denmark were able to organize assessments as planned. Additional assessments to follow up on possible gains or losses in learning outcomes of students were not organized at the national level. Denmark’s Ministry of Education did seek to recruit researchers to investigate how the COVID-19 crisis affected students’ and teachers’ emotional health as well as students’ physical health. Provision of resources and professional development Schools were not provided with additional resources during the COVID-19 disruption. Importantly, formal support for developing digital learning practices was already granted before the COVID-19 disruption. As such, digital resources (such as virtual learning environments or learning management systems), digital lessons, digital learning materials, digital devices for students and teachers to use in remote learning were already available, alongside paper-based resources. Since schools operate autonomously, they were not required to use any of these resources in response to the COVID-19 disruption. The only requirement that schools were obliged to fulfill was to conduct students assessment as planned. Although there was little obligatory guidance from the national ministry, they still recommended that schools implement the use of home access to school-based digital education resources, physically distribute learning materials, support teachers to use computer and other ICT equipment in remote teaching, and provide digital learning materials. Moreover, the national authorities also highlighted the importance of supporting students that were falling behind during the COVID-19 disruption.38 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling Although schools had much autonomy during the COVID-19 disruption, national authorities implemented policies regarding social distancing and hygiene measures. Schools in which physical attendance was allowed after the disruption were required to implement greater access to hygiene facilities (soap/sanitizer), increased cleaning on school premises, social distancing between students and adults, and continued remote learning options for students. Other measures that were recommended, but not required, were varying school starting times for different groups of students, smaller class sizes, and supplementing face-to-face teaching with remote teaching. Measures such as increasing the number of staff or splitting up the break times between classes for different groups of students were not referred to in any policies or plans. Ethiopia COVID-19 situation in Ethiopia and its impact on the education system On March 13, 2020, the first person tested positive for COVID-19 in Ethiopia. On March 16, all schools were closed. School closures continued for the rest of school year 2019-20, and into the beginning of school year 2020-21. In November 2020, after eight months, schools reopened. To ensure that the most important pedagogical content was covered in the classroom, the curriculum for the school year 2020-21 was adjusted. The reference period in Ethiopia consisted of 7.5 months of school disruption (see Figure 4.1.3). During the reference period, the number of people testing positive steadily increased until August 2020. At the time of schools reopening, Ethiopia had already started to see a decline in the number of people testing positive. Decisions on school closure and reopening were made at the national level, meaning that all schools were obligated to follow them. However, some districts granted flexibility to certain schools that needed more time to prepare for reopening, so that they could implement measures to adhere to the rules that governed reopening. 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 End of school year Remote learning started Beginning of school year 2021 remote learning all grades grade 6 and above all grades grade 5 and above end of the school closure is unknown for grade 5 and above Total population: 5,831,404; GDP per capita (current US$): 60657 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 5.27% Figure 4.1.2: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Denmark Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. The end date of the second school closure is missing for grade 5 and above. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019). School closure: 11 Mar. 2020 - 15 Apr. 2020 (all grades) 11 Mar. 2020 - 18 May 2020 (grade 6 and above) School closure outside the reference period Data collection period: 14 Dec 2020 - 5 Apr 202139 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Centralization and accountability in Ethiopia In Ethiopia, the way in which teaching and learning practices are organized is determined by the Ministry of Education and the Regional Education Bureaus. More precisely, the Ministry of Education is responsible for designing the curriculum and national policies. Regional Education Bureaus are responsible for implementing the education policies formulated at the national level. This task division continued to exist during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a response to the COVID-19 disruption, the Ministry of Health and Attorney General also developed guidelines and regulations for schools and students. In addition, Ethiopian schools have some degree of autonomy concerning the implementation of the outlined curriculum and national policies. For example, schools can adjust school schedules in response to the capacity and resources of their classrooms. This autonomy was also granted to schools during the COVID-19 disruption. Planned assessments were postponed to a later date due to the disruption. Additional assessments to measure the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on students’ academic outcomes, as well as students’ and teachers’ physical and emotional wellbeing, were not implemented. Figure 4.1.3: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Ethiopia School closure: 16 Mar. 2020 - 30 Oct. 2020 Data collection period: 14 - 25 Jun. 2021 Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019). Provision of resources and professional development The government delivered a number of documents to local authorities and schools in which regulations, guidance, and priorities on how to react to the pandemic were set out. In regard to the provision of resources; schools received access to paper-based resources, formative assessments, and access to television broadcasts to continue learning during the COVID-19 disruption. Moreover, in cities with internet access, schools used the Telegram app 8 to send students reading materials, notes, and assignments. In comparison to public schools, private schools made greater efforts to reach their students by sending materials and assignments home through parents. In contrast to the other resources mentioned, radio or audio broadcasts to support teaching and 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 End of school year Beginning of school year 2021 Total population: 114,963,583; GDP per capita (current US$): 828 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 0.23% 8 Telegram is an instant messaging application. https://telegram.org/40 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION learning were already available prior to the pandemic. Schools that had access to these resources were required to use them to enhance remote learning practices. Furthermore, schools were requested to ensure the following priorities were implemented: providing support for students that are falling behind, facilitating collaborations between teachers, providing guidance to schools on how to support parents/guardians, supporting safe working environments and/or healthy work practices, and ensuring social and emotional support for teachers. Professional development courses for teachers, students, or parents to develop their ICT-related competencies were not prioritized. Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling The Ethiopian government established a number of measures for the reopening of schools in November 2020. These included varied school starting and break times for different groups of students, increased hygiene facilities and cleaning on school premises, social distancing rules between students (and adults), and smaller class sizes. Making remote learning available, implemented blended learning practices, and increasing the number of staff were recommended but not required. India COVID-19 situation in India and its impact on the education system On January 27, 2020, the first Indian citizen tested positive for COVID-19. A lockdown was imposed by the government on March 24, which prohibited all students from physically attending schools. Starting in mid-October 2020, schools slowly reopened in most states. However, this largely applied to students enrolled in grades 8 to 12. For students in lower grades, remote learning continued in most of the states. The reference period in India consisted of at least 7 months of school disruption (see Figure 4.1.4). During the reference period, the number of people testing positive steadily rose and didn’t start to decline until October 2020. Decisions regarding school closure were made at both the national and state level. However, during the pandemic, several documents providing guidelines on the reopening of schools, the facilitation of remote learning, the maintenance of the mental health and well-being of students, among others, were laid out at the central-level and then localized by the States, Union Territories, and schools, giving them a certain degree of flexibility. During school closures, many schools had to abruptly shift to remote teaching practices. However, this also enlarged the digital inequity within the country, since many schools were not prepared and students (especially in rural areas) did not have the means to access digital materials. Numerous other approaches were thus taken to enable learning during school closures, through online, television, radio, and paper-based programmes and materials. Most teachers–except those teaching in elite schools–used mobile phones as their main teaching device, which led to various challenges. These challenges included low attendance, class disruptions due to poor internet quality, and students getting distracted easily, etc. Due to the COVID-19 disruption, in many states, orders were issued to cancel the end of year examinations and promote all students up to grade 8. Centralization and accountability in India Schools in India are very diverse in terms of the school board, management, and funding, which affects the type of guidance and autonomy schools receive. Schools can differ based on the school board they are affiliated with (e.g., The Central Board of Secondary Education, The State Board, The Indian Certificate of Secondary Education, International Baccalaureate, etc.), the type of management they have (central, state, or private), and the type of financial support they receive (fully funded by central/state or unaided/self-financing). Consequently, decisions regarding the teaching and learning practices are a shared responsibility of the Ministry of Education, the Indian States, and the local bodies, depending on the type of school. During the COVID-19 disruption, this remained a shared responsibility. Guidelines were provided by the Ministry of Education, which were adopted by the States based on the severity of the pandemic. The degree of autonomy schools had before and during the COVID-19 disruption was similar and depended on the funding body and management type. Schools that are funded centrally or managed by the central41 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION government received lesser autonomy. Schools that receive state funding (including privately managed) experienced some degree of autonomy. Schools that are self-funded kept a relatively high level of autonomy in determining their teaching and learning practices. Due to the pandemic, the scheduled term-end assessments in the domains of language, mathematics, sciences, human sciences, and IT were cancelled or postponed. However, some state and private managed schools conducted formative assessments in certain parts of the country. To monitor the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on students’ learning progress, the Ministry of Education provided guidelines for assessing students after the reopening of schools. However, flexibility was built into the assessment schedules as many schools remained closed as the country dealt with a second wave. Furthermore, rapid assessment-based surveys were conducted by different agencies to monitor the pandemic’s impact on student achievement and school attendance. Figure 4.1.4: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in India Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. The end date of the reference period is missing for grade 7 and below. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019). Provision of resources and professional development The Ministry of Education, States, and Boards provided schools with guidance, plans, and rules on how to address the challenges to school education as a result of the COVID-19 disruption (e.g., India Report - Digital education, 2020). Most schools were already making use of the large set of digital resources that were available prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as digital lessons or learning materials, television and radio broadcasts, and paper-based resources. However, some additional digital resources were provided to schools during the COVID-19 disruption. These included virtual learning environments or learning management systems, virtual assessments, and digital devices for teachers and students who did not have their own devices at home to use for remote teaching. Schools were required to use all the above-mentioned digital and paper- based resources, and this was advocated both by the Ministry of Education and the States. Furthermore, schools were requested to ensure the following priorities were given: professional development for teachers’ general and pedagogical use of ICT, support for students who were falling behind, support for safe working environments and/or healthy work practices, and socioemotional support for teachers. Collaborations amongst teaching staff, guidance for schools Total population: 1,380,004,385; GDP per capita (current US$): 2116 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 2.21% 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 2021 all grades remote learning 6-10 grade mostly grade 7 and below School closure: School closure: 24 Mar. 2020 - 15 Oct. 2020 (all grades) 24 Mar. 2020 - ? (mostly grade 7 and above) Data collection period: 15 Mar. 2021 - 30 May 2021 end of the school closure is unknown for grade 7 and below42 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION on how to support parents/guardians, the development of ICT-related competencies in students, and the use of ICT to improve communication with parents, were also implied to be necessary in the Ministry of Education’s guidance documentation. Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling A number of rules regarding social distancing and hygiene measures accompanied the reopening of schools. Schools where physical attendance was allowed again were required to implement varied school starting and break times for different groups of students, increased hygiene facilities and cleaning on school premises, social distancing rules between students (and adults), smaller class sizes, the option of continued remote learning for students, and supplementing face-to-face teaching with remote learning. Smaller class sizes were recommended but not required. Kenya COVID-19 situation in Kenya and its impact on the education system On March 13, 2020, the first confirmed citizen tested positive for COVID-19 in Kenya. Shortly after, in the week of March 16, the Kenyan government decided to prohibit the physical attendance at schools for all students. The length of the reference period in Kenya is unknown, as this information was not provided on the questionnaire (see Figure 4.1.5)9. During the reference period, the number of people testing positive generally varied from month to month. Decisions on school closure were taken by the national government and, consequently, affected all schools. To ensure pedagogical continuity, remote learning practices were adopted by means of radio and television broadcasts and other online platforms. However, many students from poor, vulnerable, and marginalized households could not access learning through these new mediums, which raised concerns with respect to the socio-economic equity of learning opportunity. To address these equity concerns, the Ministry of Education administered a survey to assess the extent of access to e-learning content. Moreover, when schools eventually reopened, they were asked to review the learning material that should have been covered during the period of school closures to ensure all students had access to the learning. Centralization and accountability in Kenya Kenya is a centralized education system, in which the Ministry of Education is responsible for establishing directions and guidance for teaching and learning at school, meaning that schools have little autonomy to make these decisions on their own. This remained the case during the COVID-19 disruption. Plans and policies regarding the appropriate response to the COVID-19 disruption were provided by the National Ministry. Planned assessments were postponed due to the pandemic. To monitor the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on students’ learning process, mandated special assessments in all subjects were taken. Moreover, sample-based or census data were collected to monitor the overall impact of the disruption on student achievement. Provision of resources and professional development To support the instruction and learning of students during the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of resources were formally provided to schools, which were not available prior to the pandemic. Specifically, the government provided schools with resources to arrange remote learning through both radio and television broadcasts and other virtual learning environments or learning management systems. Schools were required to use the available resources (i.e., television/radio broadcasts or online platforms). Apart from the formal support concerning the above-mentioned resources, plans and documents created by the government to address the COVID-19 disruption also emphasized the need for the following resources: provision of computer equipment and other ICT resources for teachers and students, maintenance of computer equipment and other ICT resources, internet connectivity, and development and provision of digital learning materials. Moreover, the provision of computer equipment and other ICT resources to schools, support 9 The exact end date of the reference period is missing.43 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION School closure: 16 Mar. 2020 - ? Data collection period: 12 -16 Jul. 2021 Figure 4.1.5: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Kenya Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. The exact end date of the reference period is missing. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019). 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 End of school year Beginning of school year 2021 Total population: 53,771,300; GDP per capita (current US$): 1817 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 0.36% for teachers in using computer resources and other ICT for remote teaching, and paper-based resources were implicitly recommended. It was also noted that there was formal support by government agencies both before and during the disruption to develop digital resources for learning. Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling A number of measures related to social distancing and hygiene were implemented by the government and obligatory for schools to implement after face-to-face schooling resumed. These included varied school starting times and breaks for different groups of students, increased hygiene facilities and cleaning on school premises. Other highly recommended measures were social distancing between adults and students, increasing the number of staff, continued remote learning options for students, and supplementing face-to-face teaching with remote teaching. The Russian Federation COVID-19 situation in the Russian Federation and its impact on the education system In March 2020, during a meeting of Russia’s nationwide anti-coronavirus task force it was recommended to temporarily transfer the educational process to distance learning, if necessary. On March 23, most schools were closed, and distance learning commenced. A federal sanction allowed schools to reopen on April 12, but different regions could extend and establish their own lockdown periods. The reference period in the Russian Federation lasted for less than one month (see Figure 4.1.6).10 The number of people testing positive remained stable, at a low level through September 2020, before starting to rise in the winter months. School closure rules were taken at the national level and applied to all schools. 10 There was flexibility granted to regions to extend the school closure period based on local circumstances. The end of the school closure is unknown44 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Centralization and accountability in the Russian Federation The Russian Federation is characterized as a centralized education system, where the responsibility for establishing directions and guidance for teaching and learning at the federal level primarily rests with the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation and the Russian Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing. During the COVID-19 disruption, plans and policies were developed at the national, state/provincial, and local levels (Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, 2020). Schools had some autonomy regarding the establishment of directions and guidance for teaching and learning, with private schools having complete or a high level of autonomy to make decisions over teaching and learning. Assessments, which had been scheduled, were eventually postponed. The Basic State Examination (OGE) and State Graduation Examination were administered between June 8 and July 31. Data on student achievement, student attendance, and student/teacher physical health were collected in order to monitor the impact of the pandemic on students and teachers. In September 2020, national assessments, which had been postponed, were administered in all schools across multiple subjects to identify specific areas impacted by the disruption. Figure 4.1.6: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in the Russian Federation Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. There was flexibility granted to regions to extend the school closure period based on local circumstances. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019). Provision of resources and professional development A set of documents were shared with schools to provide them with direction for teaching and learning during the disruption period (Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, 2020; Federal Service for Supervision of Education and Science, 2021). Additionally, prior to the pandemic, a National Project “Education” for 2019-2024 had already provided some guidelines for setting up online learning environments and building the capacities of schools to use technology (Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, 2019). While virtual learning environments, assessments of student learning, and television and radio broadcasts to support learning had mostly been available before the COVID-19 disruption, a number of additional resources were 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 End of school year Beginning of school year 2021 remote learning started Total population: 144,104,080; GDP per capita (current US$): 11606 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 4.21% School closure: 23 Mar. 2020 - 12 Apr. 2020 Data collection period: 01 - 31 Dec. 202045 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION provided specifically for the pandemic, including, digital lessons or learning materials, paper- based materials, and digital devices for students and teachers to be used for remote learning. All resources were freely available to the public to benefit both teachers and students. Plans and policies explicitly mentioned professional development for teachers’ use of ICT, development of ICT-related competencies in students, use of ICT to improve communication with parents, support of students that were falling behind, collaboration among teaching staff, guidance for schools about how to support parents/guardians, and social-emotional support for teachers as priority areas. Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling When returning to schools, a number of precautionary health measures were emphasized such as varied school start and break times for different groups of students, increased hygiene facilities (soap/sanitizer) and cleaning on school premises, social distancing between students and adults, continued remote learning options for students, and other infection control measures (e.g., mandated wearing of masks). Additionally, smaller class sizes and more staff were implicitly recommended in school guidance. Rwanda COVID-19 situation in Rwanda and its impact on the education system On March 14, 2020, Rwanda reported its first confirmed case of COVID-19. Shortly after, the government decided to prohibit the physical attendance of students in all schools (public, private, and government aided) starting on March 16. School reopening was completed in several phases that took place between October 2020 and March 2021. The reference period in Rwanda for the majority of schools consisted of 8 months of school disruption (see Figure 4.1.7). The number of people testing positive during the reference period steadily rose until August 2020, but eventually began to fall as reopening phases started to take place. In January 2021, however, the number of people testing positive reached a second peak after some schools had already reopened. School closure rules during the reference period were taken at the national level, meaning that they applied to all schools. Centralization and accountability in Rwanda Under normal circumstances, the Ministry of Education establishes guidelines concerning teaching and learning. During the COVID-19 disruption, the responsibility was, however, shared among several authorities. The Rwanda Biomedical Centre and Ministry of Health were involved in these decisions by providing guidelines regarding health and safety issues at school. Local governments were also involved to monitor activities at the school level and to ensure that the COVID-19 measures were respected (e.g., no social gatherings at school). While local governments generally have a high level of autonomy regarding decisions on teaching and learning, the health measures introduced during the pandemic brought some limitations on the types of teaching and learning that local governments could allow. During the school closures, no assessments were scheduled. However, students were provided access to online self-assessments using multiple choice questionnaires. To follow up on students’ learning loss or gains, special assessments in all subjects were carried out after schools reopened, with a stronger focus given to core subjects such as Mathematics, English, Biology, Physics and Chemistry. Furthermore, data were collected on student achievement, student attendance, and students’ and teachers’ physical health to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 crisis.46 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Figure 4.1.7: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Rwanda Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019). Provision of resources and professional development A number of resources were made available to schools to facilitate instruction and learning during the COVID-19 disruption. While digital lessons/learning materials and assessments of student learning were already available to schools prior to the pandemic, virtual learning environments and learning management systems, paper-based resources, digital devices for teachers, and television and radio broadcasts were expanded during the disruption. Furthermore, some teachers needed to receive ICT devices to increase their capacity to deliver instruction using technology. Schools were not required to use the above-mentioned digital resources, as the Ministry of Education was not able to provide them to all schools. However, some form of remote learning was encouraged for all schools. In addition, plans and policies explicitly stated the priority to support the professional development of teachers in the use of ICT for learning. Social distancing and hygiene measures Schools were required to implement a number of health and safety measures upon the return of students to in-person learning. These measures included varied break times between classes, increased hygiene facilities and cleaning in schools, social distancing between students and adults, smaller class sizes, increased number of staff, and infection control (e.g., mandated wearing of masks). Policies further recommended (but not required) were varied school start times, continued remote learning options for students, and supplementing face-to-face teaching with remote teaching. Slovenia COVID-19 situation in Slovenia and its impact on the education system On March 4, 2020, the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Slovenia. Nearly two weeks later, on March 16, 2020, all elementary schools were closed. Schools reopened prior to the end of the school year, with students returning sometime between May 18 and June 3 depending on their grade level. The reference period of school disruption in Slovenia lasted for approximately 3 months (see Figure 4.1.8). During this time, the number of people testing positive stayed relatively low, however, between September 2020 to March 2021, Slovenia experienced a rapid rise in the Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 2021 35.000 30.000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Total population: 12,952,209; GDP per capita (current US$): 820 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 0.51% remote learning started School closure: 16 Mar. 2020 - several phases between Oct. 2020 and Mar. 2021 Data collection period: 23 Jun. 2021 - ? end date of the data collection period is unknown47 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION number of people testing positive. School closure rules were established at the national level and applied to all schools, both public and private. The school year 2019-20 was not prolonged and ended as prescribed. Centralization and accountability in Slovenia Slovenia is characterized as a centralized education system11, and the national Ministry of Education, Science and Sport is the primary authority on education although municipalities are central to the provision of public compulsory education. The Ministry defines the policies and other rules related to education, as well as the general curriculum. The National Education Institute is primarily responsible for providing schools with guidance and directions concerning teaching and learning practice (and to prepare syllabuses for each subject). This did not change during the COVID-19 disruption. The Ministry sent organizational and health guidance via circular letters, and the National Institute of Education prepared documents related to subject- specific curriculum/syllabuses. Despite this, public schools were granted slightly more autonomy to decide on teaching and learning practices during the pandemic in the sense that schools and teachers had more opportunity to provide instruction when they wanted and assess students in the ways they felt appropriate. The National Education Institute supported schools and teachers with different guidance on the aforementioned topics during this period. In Slovenia, the national assessment planned for grades 6 and 9 were cancelled for the school year 2019-20. National assessments resumed for the school year 2020-21 with some new rules and guidance to accommodate health and safety during the pandemic. Alongside the national assessments for the first time, a student questionnaire (which was not mandatory for students) was administered and linked to assessment results to gather better insights into learning loss. No sample-based or census data were collected to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on students and teachers. Descriptive data were collected by the media, some faculty members, and the National Institute for Education at the end of the school year 2019-20 to get a sense of the impact of the pandemic, however, they were not representative of the entire population. Figure 4.1.8: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Slovenia Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 End of school year Beginning of school year 2021 remote learning started national examinations cancelled Total population: 2,100,126; GDP per capita (current US$): 26062 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 11.92% 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 11 Compulsory basic education in Slovenia is organized as integrated primary and lower secondary education, i.e., as a single structure nine-year basic school. School closure: 16 Mar. 2020 - between 18 May and 03 Jun. 2020 Data collection period: 01 - 31 Mar. 2021 Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019).48 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Provision of resources and professional development Schools regularly received messages and guidance from both the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport and the National Institute of Education (2020). A number of resources to support remote learning were already available to schools before the pandemic, such as virtual learning environments or learning management systems and a system for reporting student grades. While virtual learning environments were already available prior to the COVID-19 disruption, their use increased with the enforcement of remote learning. Digital lessons or learning materials were developed by different stakeholders (e.g., teachers), as well as some publishing houses that shared electronic and interactive materials nationally during this time. Furthermore, digital devices were often issued by the school/state to those without access to a computer or the internet. Physical distribution of paper-based materials was also offered to homes with no computer/internet or to families who were not easily contactable. National television broadcasts were also used to support learning with content linked to syllabuses. Schools were required to use the above-mentioned resources to support remote learning, with the use of student assessments intended to happen once schools reopened. Guidance from the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport and National Education Institute explicitly stated the need to provide schools and teachers with several digital resources (e.g., internet connectivity, video conferencing, school-hosted online portals, etc.) as well as support measures enabling them to develop remote learning strategies. Professional development aimed at supporting the use of ICT in remote learning was explicitly emphasized in the guidance. Formal support measures for the development of digital resources (e.g., e-textbooks, open educational resources) had always been available, even prior to the pandemic. In addition, the University of Maribor established a joint educational support centre to assist and provide guidance on the successful implementation of distance education (collecting materials produced for all school subjects at the level of compulsory education; providing individual help, explanations, and cooperation between students and teachers). Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling When students returned to the school building, a number of measures were taken, these included increased hygiene facilities (soap/sanitizer) and cleaning on school premises, and infection control measures (e.g., mandated wearing of masks). In addition to the required measures, recommendations were made to implement varied school starting and break times for different groups, social distancing between students and adults, and continued remote learning options for students. United Arab Emirates COVID-19 situation in the United Arab Emirates and its impact on the education system On January 29, 2020, the first case of COVID-19 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was announced. In late March, the Ministry of Education announced that all schools should close. The number of people testing positive was relatively low at the time. Students continued their schooling through distance learning. On August 30, ISCED 1 (ages 6-10) students returned for face-to-face instruction, while ISCED 2 and 3 (ages 11-18) continued with distance learning. However, after a surge in cases over the winter break, starting from January 2021 (the winter term) all schools had to revert to distance learning. The reference period in the UAE consisted of about 10 months of school disruption for students in ISCED 2 and 3. For ISCED 1 students, the reference period consisted of about 5 months (Figure 4.1.9). School closure rules, for the most part, were the same for both public and private schools. However, exceptions were made for some private school students to return to in-person learning earlier in 2021 while most public school students remained in distance learning. Centralization and accountability in the United Arab Emirates The UAE is characterized as a centralized education system, with all public schools in the UAE managed under the authority of the Ministry of Education. While still receiving general education policy and directions from the Ministry of Education, private schools also have different49 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION authorities based on the Emirate.12 With this arrangement, private, special education, and charter schools had slightly more autonomy to make decisions over teaching and learning than public schools (“some autonomy” vs. “little or no autonomy”). This arrangement mostly held during the COVID-19 disruption. However, it was noted that private schools received more restrictions and guidance than usual from the central authorities regarding the specific modes of instruction (e.g., compulsory distance or hybrid learning) and health protocols (i.e., cleaning protocols, class sizes, social distancing, etc.) aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19. Yet, private schools were still granted flexibility in creating reopening plans to accommodate the different types of schools and their capacities. In public schools, regularly mandated assessments took place as scheduled. For private schools, school-based mandated summative assessments were discouraged due to integrity issues (assessment reliability and validity), but schools could ultimately make the final decision. The central authorities did not mandate any additional special assessments to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on learning progress. However, data on student attendance and student/teacher physical health were collected for this purpose. Public and private schools were encouraged to use diagnostic and formative assessments to measure learning gaps and develop interventions. Figure 4.1.9: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in the United Arab Emirates Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. The end date of the second school closure is missing. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019). 12 Abu Dhabi Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK) in Abu Dhabi, Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) in Dubai, Sharjah Private Education Authority (SPEA) in Sharjah, and the Ministry of Education (MOE) managing the remaining Emirates. Total population: 9,890,400; GDP per capita (current US$): 43103 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 6.65% 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 2021 all grades remote learning started grade 7 and above all grades School closure: late Mar. 2020 - 30 Aug. 2020 (all grades) late Mar. 2020 - Jan. 2021 (grade 7 and above) Data collection period: 21 Dec. 2020 - 05 Feb. 2021 School closure outside the reference period end date of second school closure is unknown50 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Provision of resources and professional development A number of documents were created by central authorities to provide guidance and outline plans for delivering instruction during the COVID-19 disruptions for both public and private schools (e.g., ADEK, 2020). In addition, a number of resources were made available to assist with the transition to distance learning that occurred during the academic year 2019-20. In public schools, the Ministry of Education had already begun a digital learning project (Alef Education) for a few years in some schools.13 Several questionnaires were sent to schools to determine any additional needs. The Ministry of Education also provided laptops, online assessments, and Microsoft Teams to all students and teachers. For private schools, only schools with more resources had digital learning resources in place prior to the disruption, consequently, many resources had to be created and made available to those schools that had nothing in place. For instance, ADEK partnered with external providers to build a unified virtual learning environment for all private schools to access and use for free. In addition, a platform for private school teachers was created to facilitate the sharing of digital lessons and materials. Finally, private school students without digital devices were provided with tablets to be able to participate in distance learning, and paper-based materials were also physically distributed, if required. Many of the above-mentioned resources were required to be used by both public and private schools. Furthermore, policies and plans either explicitly or implicitly emphasized the needs for the provision and maintenance of digital resources to support distance learning. Across both public and private schools, plans or policies developed to address the COVID-19 disruption included professional development for teachers’ use of ICT, development of ICT-related competencies in students, use of ICT in communicating with parents, support of students falling behind, collaboration among teaching staff, and social-emotional support for teachers, among others. Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling When preparing school return plans, both public and private schools were required to consider health and safety measures depending on school size and the return model (i.e., full face-to-face or partial face-to-face teaching, or distance learning). These measures included varied school starting times and varied school break times for different groups of students, increased hygiene facilities (soap/sanitizer) and cleaning on school premises, social distancing between students and adults, smaller class sizes, continued remote learning options for students, supplementing face- to-face teaching with remote teaching, and infection control measures (e.g., mandated wearing of masks). Furthermore, the Private School Reopening Policies and Guidelines document also explicitly mentioned the recruitment of classroom assistants and increasing the number of staff at schools (ADEK, 2020). Uruguay COVID-19 situation in Uruguay and its impact on the education system In Uruguay, schools were closed on March 16, 2020. Schools outside metropolitan areas reopened between April and June 2020, and all public and private schools reopened on June 29. The reference period of school disruption in Uruguay lasted for 4 months (see Figure 4.1.10). During the reference period, the number of people testing positive stayed at a relatively low level, although it began to rise between December 2020 and March 2021. Decisions over school closures were made at the national level and applied to both public and private schools. Before October 13, 2020, attendance in-person was not mandatory. After this date, compulsory 13 Alef Education is a global education technology company whose mission is to transform K-12 school systems with technology-enable learning experiences. More information can be found on their website: https://www. alefeducation.com/51 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION attendance was required, with some exceptions. Centralization and accountability in Uruguay Uruguay is characterized as a centralized education system, and the National Public Education Administration (ANEP) oversees all public schools and provides directions and guidance for teaching and learning at schools. This did not change during the COVID-19 disruption. However, during the pandemic, both public and private schools were provided with greater autonomy to decide on teaching and learning practices. While general guidelines and recommendations for the use of online education during school closures were provided to public schools, teachers were able to decide how to implement and adapt remote learning to fit the needs and context of their students. Private schools had a high level of autonomy to make decisions regarding teaching and learning during the COVID-19 disruption. In Uruguay, mandated assessments in language arts, foreign language, and mathematics took place as scheduled. The science assessment, however, ended up being cancelled. No additional assessments were mandated, however, sample-based or census data on student achievement and attendance were collected to be used to monitor the COVID-19 disruption’s impact on students and teachers. Figure 4.1.10: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Uruguay 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 Beginning of school year End of school year 2021 remote learning started until October, physical attendance was not mandatory, but enabled school closure for all; reopening took place in phases Total population: 3,473,727; GDP per capita (current US$): 16190 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 10.61% School closure: 16 Mar. 2020 - between Apr. and end of Jun. 2020 Data collection period: 05 May 2021 - 11 Jun. 2021 Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019). Provision of resources and professional development Since 2007, Uruguay has had a plan in place that supports the use of technology in education: Plan Ceibal. The plan was created to promote digital inclusion and equal opportunities in education with the aim of providing a personal computer to every student in primary and middle public schools, internet access to all schools, and a comprehensive set of educational resources and pedagogical services and programmes. During the COVID-19 disruption, Plan Ceibal adapted and strengthened their services to teachers, students, and families, launching Ceibal en Casa (Ceibal at home). Students and teachers were given access to virtual learning environments, math platforms, a national digital library, as well as training and support. Families were provided content and guidance on how to support pedagogical continuity as well as socioemotional support. In52 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION addition to the digital resources provided by Plan Ceibal, paper-based resources and television broadcasts were made available during the COVID-19 disruptions. Some school buildings remained open to provide food or paper-based learning materials to students in need. The plans or policies provided to schools required the use of online learning resources, but also explicitly emphasized many of the above-mentioned resources (including non-digital means to access education). Plans or policies also explicitly stated the following priorities: support of students that were falling behind, and collaboration among teaching staff. Furthermore, the following aspects were implicitly referenced in central plans or policies, professional development for teachers’ general use of ICT, professional development for teachers’ pedagogical use of ICT, and development of ICT-related competencies in students. Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling As students returned to schools for face-to-face instruction, guidance emphasized a number of protective health measures including varied school starting and break times between classes for different groups of students, increased hygiene facilities (soap/sanitizer) and cleaning on school premises, social distancing between students and adults, smaller class sizes, continued remote learning options for students, and infection control measures (e.g., mandated mask wearing). Uzbekistan COVID-19 situation in Uzbekistan and its impact on the education system Uzbekistan confirmed its first case of COVID-19 on March 15, 2020. In response, the government of Uzbekistan announced the closure of all schools beginning on March 18. At the time, there were a relatively low number of people testing positive (see Figure 4.1.11). Schools would gradually reopen during the fall/autumn of 2020, allowing discretion to families to assess their situation and decide whether they would send their children back to school. The reference period of school disruption in Uzbekistan lasted for 8 months. Centralization and accountability in Uzbekistan Uzbekistan is characterized as a centralized education system, with the Ministry of Public Education typically responsible for all aspects of school education. This slightly changed during the COVID-19 disruption. During the disruption, district councils or commissions with the input of sanitary and epidemiological centres, district public education, and district administration were able to make decisions over the learning format taking place in their schools. Therefore, responsibility for establishing directions and guidance for teaching and learning in schools was shared across multiple authorities (both national and local). In Uzbekistan, mandated assessments took place as scheduled during the disruption. Furthermore, no special assessments were required to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on learning progress. However, sample-based or census data on student achievement, attendance, student emotional and physical health, and teacher physical health were collected and used for this purpose. Provision of resources and professional development A number of decisions by the Republican Special Commissions, published as orders by the Minister of Public Education, outlined plans to address the COVID-19 disruption to school education (Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2020). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the public education system already used some online information systems and websites, however, some other sources were newly introduced during the disruption. Beginning in March 2020, teachers and other specialists in public education were encouraged to begin preparing television and video lessons. Television lessons were broadcast across six TV channels of the National TV and Radio Company. Digital lessons or learning materials, physically distributed materials, assessments for student learning, and television broadcasts were all required during the disruption. A number of priorities were set through plans and policies aimed at addressing the COVID-19 disruption to education, such as professional development for teachers’ use of ICT, developing student ICT-related competencies, use of ICT to improve communication with53 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Number of people testing positive 2020 End of school year Beginning of school year 2021 remote learning started national examinations were cancelled Total population: 34,232,050; GDP per capita (current US$): 1756 Total rate of people testing positive from Jan. 2020 to Jul. 2021: 0.36% Figure 4.1.11: Monthly numbers of new people testing positive for COVID-19 from January 2020- July 2021, school closure, and data collection periods in Uzbekistan Notes: Details on the interpretation are provided in the introduction of this section. Data Sources: The World Bank (2021); WHO (2021); UN (2019). School closure: 18 Mar. 2020 - fall 2020 Data collection period: 15 Mar. 2021 - 15 Apr. 2021 parents, support of students falling behind, collaboration among teaching staff, guidance for schools on how to support parents/guardians, and social-emotional support for teachers. These continued to be priorities for Uzbekistan as they entered the 2020-21 academic year. Social distancing and hygiene measures for in-person schooling To provide guidance to schools planning to reopen for face-to-face learning, several health safety measures were emphasized as requirements for schools. These measures included varied school starting and break times for different groups of students, increased hygiene facilities (soap/ sanitizer), extended cleaning on school premises, social distancing between students and adults, smaller class sizes, continued remote learning options, supplementing face-to-face teaching with remote teaching, and infection control measures (e.g., mandated wearing of masks). References Please note: All country-specific documents that are cited in this section available in Appendix A2 Table A2.1(in the column: Documents and Publications). Parveva, T., Horváth, A., Krémó, A., & Sigalas, E; Monseur, C. (2020). Equity in school education in Europe: Structures, policies and student performance. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission. http://doi.org/10.2797/880217 OECD, (2017). The funding of school education: Connecting resources and learning. OECD https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264276147-en The World Bank. (2021). Population, total. Data. Retrieved September 15, 2021, from https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL World Health Organization. (2021). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Retrieved September 1, 2021, from https://covid19.who.int/info/ United Nations. (2019). Undata. Record view. Per capita GDP at current prices - US dollars. United Nations. Retrieved June 16, 2021, from http://data.un.org/Data. aspx?q=GdP&d=SNAAMA&f=grID%3A101%3BcurrID%3AUSD%3BpcFlag%3A54 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION 4.2 Impact of the pandemic on classroom teaching and learning Mojca Rožman, Sabine Meinck, Minge Chen Section highlights Teaching and learning continued for the most part during the disruption and for most schools, remote instruction was not yet an integral approach to teaching. However, teachers, principals, and students needed to adapt to alternative teaching and learning methods with COVID-19 disrupting how schools around the world operate. • Teachers in India, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and responding teachers in Denmark and Uruguay offered either online, or offline teaching, or a combination of both to their students. In Burkina Faso, and Ethiopia, most of the responding teachers did not do any remote teaching. • The majority of students in the participating countries, except for responding students in Burkina Faso and Ethiopia, reported having their lessons outside the school building. • Taking into account the duration of the disruption and the reliance on remote teaching and learning within this period, most responding students in Burkina Faso, about half in Ethiopia and a fifth in Kenya were not doing any schoolwork for at least four months. A range of resources was needed to implement remote teaching and learning. • The majority of students reported that smartphones and a good internet connection were available during the disruption. • Most school principals reported that the capacity to deliver remote teaching was at least somewhat limited by a lack of student access to digital devices. Furthermore, many reported on a lack of teacher technical skills and experience in remote teaching pedagogy, as somewhat limiting. • Most schools offered one-to-one support to all students, except for schools in Ethiopia, and Kenya. Students and teachers reported on their perspectives on the impact of the disruption. • Students reported they made more progress in certain subjects compared to before the disruption. At the same time, about half of the students across the participating countries agreed that it became more difficult to know how well they were progressing. • Most teachers across the countries reported on using more time to adapt and plan lessons in comparison to before the disruption, and they were able to deliver enough content for students to meet the requirements of the curriculum. • Many teachers across countries reported on a decrease in student learning and engagement during the period of disruption.55 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Introduction This section provides information about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on classroom teaching and learning. The unexpected circumstances caused by the pandemic forced many schools around the world to close their doors to regular face-to-face teaching. Nevertheless, schools across many countries strove to find ways to continue teaching and learning by adapting their usual delivery methods. Schools needed to adjust rapidly to the new situation by identifying alternative approaches to teaching and learning, and where necessary, mobilizing additional resources. Fundamentally, schools needed to address the issues of how communication could take place between teachers and students and how suitable teaching and learning materials could be selected, sourced, and made available to students. The exact nature of these challenges varied according to the nature of the alternative teaching and learning methods (in particular, whether ICT-based delivery could be used as the core approach) and the individual circumstances of countries, and schools within countries. This section addresses the REDS research question: What were the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning, and how were these mitigated by measures at the school level. It describes the conditions and the impact of the pandemic on classroom teaching and learning from the perspectives of principals, teachers, and students. It reports on the implementation of school closures, the nature of available resources, and changed approaches to teaching. The section is structured in three parts: school closure and remote teaching, study- and work environment, and general impact. School closure and remote teaching The COVID-19 pandemic affected countries at different points in time and with varying intensity. In Ethiopia, India, and Slovenia, school closures were governed by the same set of national rules. In Ethiopia, schools had to close from mid-March until November, in India from the end of March until mid-October, and in Slovenia from mid-March until the end of May (for details see Section 4.1). In the remaining countries, there was the possibility for variations in the school disruption periods. REDS therefore asked school principals to report on the beginning and end of the disruption period. The available response options for the beginning of the disruption were the months January to August and for the end, March to October14, as the intention was to define the initial disruption period. Of note, it turned out that the initial disruption period lasted longer than October 2020 in Kenya and Uzbekistan (see Section 4.1). As data collection took place in late 2020, although not stated in the questionnaire, it is assumed that all dates refer to the year 2020. In addition, school principals could indicate each time point, if the period started or ended “early,” “mid,” or “late” in the month. Based on these two responses, a duration in months for each school was calculated and recoded into the following categories: “less than two months,” “two months or longer but less than three months,” “three months or longer but less than four months,” and “four months or longer.” Table 4.2.1 presents the modal months for the beginning and end of the disruption period, reported by principals across most countries. In all participating countries the disruption for most schools started in March, except for the Russian Federation where the disruption started in April in most schools. For about half of the participating schools in Denmark the disruption ended in May, the same applied to about half of the schools in the Russian Federation. In Burkina Faso and the United Arab Emirates the disruption period in schools most frequently ended in June, Uruguay in July, Uzbekistan in September, Kenya and Rwanda in October. The distribution of the duration of the reference period is presented in Figure 4.2.1. According to the responses from the National Research Coordinators, the duration of the reference period in Ethiopia and India was more than four months, and in Slovenia between three and four months (see Section 4.1). 14 Data collection was planned to start in November 2020. Therefore, the month October was the last possible response option for the end of the disruption in the school questionnaire, assuming at that time the disruption had ended already.56 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION As reported by principals, the duration of this period varied between schools and across countries. In Burkina Faso, the duration was less than four months for the majority of schools. In Kenya, Rwanda, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan, most schools reported a duration of four months or more. In Denmark, almost two thirds of responding principals reported that the disruption lasted less than three months, in the Russian Federation this was true for more than 80% of schools. The distribution of the duration of school closures in the United Arab Emirates was evenly spread, for one third of schools, it lasted four months or longer, for slightly less than one third it lasted between three and four months. For Ethiopia, India, and Slovenia this information is not available from the dataset as the question regarding the start and end point of the disruption was not administered. The school closures created the need to use alternative modes and teaching approaches other than regular face-to-face teaching. Teachers’ perspectives provided valuable insights into the nature of the alternative teaching methods that were used. As noted in Chapter 3, it is likely that many teachers taught a number of different classes (different class groups, subjects and grade levels). To prevent teachers from being uncertain about how to accommodate variations in the methods and modes they used across their classes, the teacher questionnaire asked teachers to consider the same one class (target class) when responding to the questions. At the beginning of the questionnaire, teachers were asked to identify the subject that they taught most in the target grade before the COVID-19 disruption started. They were asked to think specifically of that class whenever they came across the term “your class” within the questionnaire. REDS asked teachers if they were teaching their class remotely during the COVID-19 disruption. The available response options were “yes, using online methods only,” “yes, using online and offline methods,” “yes, using offline methods only,” and “no.” Online methods were specified as relating to computer-based methods and offline to non-computer based, such as, sending paper materials to students’ homes or telephone-based teaching. In Table 4.2.2 the distribution of teachers’ responses is presented. Almost all teachers in the participating countries reported engaging in remote teaching. Remote teaching was less frequently reported among teachers in India (61%) Country Notes: Standard errors appear in parentheses. g Low participation rates. See Appendix A1, Tables A1.5 to A1.9 for details. j More than 5% of targeted schools were excluded. See Chapter 3, Table 3.1 for details. k This item was not administered in this country. o Data are available for at least 50% but less than 70% of the respondents. Burkina Faso March 99 (1.0) Juneo 76 (5.2) Ethiopiaj k k India k k Kenyag,j March 83 (4.4) October 64 (6.6) Russian Federationj April 52 (5.8) May 48 (4.7) Rwanda March 76 (3.3) October 85 (2.9) Sloveniag,j k k United Arab Emirates March 62 (5.0) June 26 (5.0) Uruguayg,j March 78 (3.6) July 64 (6.3) Uzbekistanj March 64 (5.0) September 65 (4.7) Data may not be representative of target population Denmarkg,j March 69 May 47 Table 4.2.1: Most frequent school responses for beginning, and end of the disruption period Beginning of disruption period (most frequent response category and %) End of disruption period (most frequent response category and %)57 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION and the responding teachers in Ethiopia (39%). In Burkina Faso, 96% of the responding teachers reported no engagement in remote teaching at all. More than half of the teachers in Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and the responding teachers in Denmark reported using online methods only. Teachers in the Russian Federation and responding teachers in Uruguay reported mostly using a combination of online and offline methods. Remote learning was not part of the daily routine for most schools before the COVID-19 disruption. With severely limited options for face-to-face teaching, teachers around the world had to adapt their teaching to use different modes and methods, an adjustment that may have caused an increase in the time required for lesson preparation and other work-related tasks such as communication with parents and peers, in addition to, or possibly instead of, time spent in direct teaching with students. REDS aimed to investigate how much time teachers spent teaching on a typical day, both, before and during the reference period, and whether teaching was conducted remotely or face-to-face on school grounds. Teachers were asked approximately how many minutes they spent teaching students before and during the COVID-19 disruption. Teachers could respond using the following response options rounding to the nearest 60 minutes excluding breaks: “NA,” “60 minutes,” “120 minutes,” “180 minutes,” “240 minutes,” “300 minutes,” or “300 minutes or more.” In Table 4.2.3 the percentages of teachers that spent four hours (240 minutes) or more teaching students on a typical day before and during the COVID-19 disruption are presented. Between about half and three quarters of the teachers in most countries were teaching a total of four full hours or more a day before the disruption. Exceptions in both directions were from respondents in Ethiopia (39%), and Denmark (84%). Overall, Table 4.2.3 shows a decrease in face-to-face teaching in all countries. The percentages of teachers reporting teaching more than four hours face-to-face substantially decreased during the disruption compared to before Figure 4.2.1: Distribution of duration of disruption period as reported by principals Notes: Standard errors appear in parentheses. g Low participation rates. See Appendix A1, Tables A1.5 to A1.9 for details. j More than 5% of targeted schools were excluded. See Chapter 3, Table 3.1 for details. k This item was not administered in this country. n Data are available for at least 70% but less than 85% of the respondents. o Data are available for at least 50% but less than 70% of the respondents. Burkina Fasoo Ethiopiaj,k Indiak Kenyag,j,o Russian Federationj Rwandan Sloveniag,j,k United Arab Emirates Uruguayg,j Uzbekistanj Denmarkg,j 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than two months Two months or longer but less than three months Three months or longer but less than four months Four months or longer 3 23 67 8 6 5 89 50 35 13 2 4 6 2 88 23 16 28 33 2 12 31 55 12 1 81 31 39 20 9 6 Data may not be representative of target population58 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . Ta bl e 4. 2. 2: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s t ea ch in g th ei r c la ss re m ot el y U si n g o n lin e m et h o d s o n ly C o u n tr y U si n g o n lin e an d o ffl in e m et h o d s U si n g o ffl in e m et h o d s o n ly N o r em o te t ea ch in g In d ia 2 0 (5 .6 ) 3 1 (4 .4 ) 2 1 (7 .8 ) 2 9 (7 .2 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 3 5 (2 .1 ) 5 6 (2 .1 ) 8 (1 .2 ) 1 (0 .3 ) Sl ov en ia g 6 3 (1 .9 ) 2 8 (1 .9 ) 7 (0 .8 ) 2 (0 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 8 1 (1 .1 ) 1 6 (0 .9 ) 1 (0 .2 ) 2 (0 .7 ) U zb ek is ta n 5 8 (1 .8 ) 3 0 (1 .5 ) 1 1 (1 .2 ) 2 (0 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 0 1 2 9 6 D en m ar kg ,i 7 4 1 9 2 6 E th io p ia i 2 9 2 8 6 1 K en ya i e e e e U ru gu ay g 2 6 7 1 2 159 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION the disruption in all participating countries. Numerous teachers seem to have applied remote teaching practices during the disruption in many countries. More than half of the teachers in the Russian Federation and United Arab Emirates and about half or more of responding teachers from Denmark and Uruguay reported teaching remotely more than four hours a day during the disruption. Despite this, between about 20% and 40% of teachers in six out of the ten countries reported to have retained substantial face-to-face teaching hours on school grounds. It should be noted that the responses about the time teaching through face-to-face or remote mode during the disruption are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could have happened that teachers were teaching students that were present on school grounds and at the same time students who virtually attended the lesson. Little remote teaching was conducted in Burkina Faso as can be seen from Table 4.2.2, consequently very few responding teachers reported teaching four hours or more a day during the disruption, but also only very few kept teaching their students on school grounds for substantial amounts of time. Interestingly, in India, where more than two thirds of teachers reported teaching remotely, the percentage of teachers teaching four hours or more, whether remote or face-to-face is rather low (about 7%), suggesting that teaching time may have been reduced during the reference period. An increase of teachers that were teaching four hours or more during the disruption (remotely or face-to-face) was observed in the Russian Federation and the United Arab Emirates, and a decrease in Slovenia and for respondents from Kenya. Students were also asked about where they attended lessons during the disruption. The available response options were “I continued to come to school for all my lessons,” “I did not come to school for any of my lessons and attended my lessons from a place away from my school,” “I came to school for some lessons but attended most lessons in a place away from my school,” “I came to school for most lessons but attended some lessons in a place away from my school,” and “I came to school for about half of my lessons and attended other lessons in a place away from my school.” These responses were then recoded into two categories, “half or more lessons at school” and “most or all lessons in a place away from school.” Another response option “I did not do any schoolwork during the COVID-19 disruption” was made available for Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya upon their request. Students in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya who chose this option skipped all questions related to learning during the reference period, a fact annotated in all the following tables. In all other countries, it was assumed all students engaged in some kind of learning during the reference period. Table 4.2.4 presents the percentages of students who reported attending lessons at school or in a place away from school during the disruption. The majority of students in participating countries reported spending most lessons in a place away from school, with the exception of responding students in Burkina Faso and Ethiopia. Consistent with their teachers and principals, most responding students in Burkina Faso reported doing no schoolwork during the disruption. In Ethiopia, about one third of responding students reported attending most lessons away from school and slightly less than half reported that they did not do any schoolwork. About one fifth of students in the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and responding students in Ethiopia reported attending half or more lessons at school. Taking into account the duration of the disruption as presented in Section 4.1 together with the information on school’s engagement with remote teaching and learning during this period of physical school closures, it becomes evident that students in participating countries were differently affected. According to the national context surveys (Section 4.1), the responses from the principals on the duration of the disruption (Figure 4.2.1), and teacher responses (Table 4.2.2), reported that remote or on-site schooling was offered universally in Denmark, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan during school closures. In contrast, in Burkina Faso, most of the responding teachers did not teach remotely and most of the responding students did not do any schoolwork for about four months. Moreover, 61% of responding teachers and 44% of responding students in Ethiopia did not engage in any teaching or schoolwork during the physical school closures. For the majority of schools, the disruption lasted seven months (see Section 4.1). In Kenya, about one fifth of responding students did not60 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 3: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s s pe nd in g 24 0 m in ut es o r m or e te ac hi ng st ud en ts o n a ty pi ca l d ay b ef or e an d du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) N A (2 ) 6 0 m in ut es (3 ) 1 20 m in ut es (4 ) 1 80 m in ut es (5 ) 2 40 m in ut es (6 ) 3 00 m in ut es a nd (7 ) 3 00 m in ut es o r m or e B ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n t h ro u gh fa ce -t o -f ac e te ac h in g o n s ch o o l g ro u n d s C o u n tr y D u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n th ro u gh r em o te t ea ch in g (w it h s tu d en ts at h o m e/ n o t o n s ch o o l g ro u n d s) D u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n t h ro u gh fa ce -t o -f ac e te ac h in g o n s ch o o l g ro u n d s In d ia 5 2 (8 .4 ) 4 (1 .5 ) 3 (1 .0 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 6 2 (1 .5 ) 6 4 (1 .9 ) 2 9 (1 .8 ) Sl ov en ia g 7 4 (1 .3 ) 1 8 (1 .6 ) k U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 6 7 (1 .2 ) 5 1 (1 .7 ) 3 8 (2 .7 ) U zb ek is ta n 4 9 (2 .7 ) 3 1 (1 .7 ) 2 1 (1 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 4 9 2 n 9 n D en m ar kg ,i 8 4 4 9 3 0 E th io p ia i 3 9 1 1 2 0 K en ya i 6 7 4 2 3 U ru gu ay g 5 0 7 2 k61 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION engage in any schoolwork during school closures, and according to the majority of the principals, the disruption lasted more than four months, hinting to severely limited learning continuity for affected students. Responses from Kenyan teachers regarding their engagement during the disruption are not available. For India, only teacher responses are available. A bit less than one third of teachers in India did not teach remotely during the disruption, with the average duration of the disruption recorded as around seven months. These results show that a substantial number of responding students in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and one fifth of responding students in Kenya were without any schoolwork for at least four months. Further, learning opportunities decreased substantially in India for more than half a year, as one out of three teachers were not teaching. Together with Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, and India are from the countries participating in REDS-those with the lowest gross domestic product (see country profiles in Section 4.1). REDS therefore presents evidence that the disruption caused a large disadvantage on many students, especially in low-income countries. Study and work environment As described earlier in this section, remote teaching and learning was relatively widespread in the participating countries. ICT resources are essential for students participating in online remote learning, and all students, regardless of their learning medium, can benefit from having a place to study and access the materials they need to complete their schoolwork. REDS asked students about the availability of the following ICT resources; computers, tablets, and smartphones, (“yes” or “no”), internet connection (“yes, it worked well all the time,” “yes, it worked well most of the time,” “yes, but it did not work well,” or “no”), a place to study and lack of things needed to complete schoolwork (“never or hardly ever,” “sometimes,” “most of the time,” or “always”). Table 4.2.5 shows the percentages of students that had access to specific resources out of the ones that did schoolwork during the disruption. The table has two parts, the first relating to ICT resources and the second access to a quiet space to work and adequate resources to complete their schoolwork at home. Smartphones and a well working internet connection were available to the vast majority of students in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and responding students in Denmark. Apart from Uzbekistan, in these countries, computers were also available to almost all students. In Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya, computers, tablets and a well working internet connection were not available for most responding students. About 10% of the responding students in Burkina Faso, 28% in Ethiopia, and 43% in Kenya had the opportunity to use smartphones. A quiet space to work with a desk and a chair were available to the majority of students in participating countries at least most of the time, with the exception of Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya, where less than one third of responding students reported having these available at least most of the time. More than 10% of students in all participating countries reported not having the necessary resources needed to complete schoolwork, at least most of the time. This was reported by more than 20% of responding students in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya, where the disruption placed an even greater relative disadvantage on students. Teachers were asked to report on their personal working circumstances. This was of particular interest in REDS given that many teachers may have been spending at least some of their time teaching from locations outside the school buildings (e.g., from home). Teachers were asked to indicate whether each of a set of different working conditions was applicable all the time, part of the time, or if it did not apply to them during the disruption. The percentages of teachers (out of the teachers that were teaching their class remotely) to whom the conditions applied at least part of the time are presented in Table 4.2.6. The majority of teachers in India, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and responding teachers in Denmark and Ethiopia, reported that schools provided them with office infrastructure to assist with teaching from home, at least part of the time. However, many teachers reported experiencing challenges in their personal working circumstances. For example, many teachers reported having pre-school or school-aged children at home. About one third to one half of teachers62 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Ta bl e 4. 2. 4: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s a tt en di ng le ss on s a t s ch oo l o r i n a pl ac e aw ay fr om sc ho ol d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on H al f o r m o re le ss o n s at s ch o o l C o u n tr y M o st o r al l l es so n s in a p la ce a w ay fr o m s ch o o l N o s ch o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . l Th is re sp on se o pt io n w as n ot a va ila bl e fo r s tu de nt s i n th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 7 (0 .7 ) 9 3 (0 .7 ) I Sl ov en ia g k k k U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 1 9 (1 .6 ) 8 1 (1 .6 ) I U zb ek is ta n h 1 8 (1 .1 ) 8 2 (1 .1 ) I D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 4 1 2 8 5 D en m ar k 8 9 2 I E th io p ia h, n 2 0 3 6 4 4 K en ya h, n 6 7 3 2 163 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 5: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s h av in g ac ce ss to th e fo llo w in g re so ur ce s a t h om e du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o; (1 ) Y es , i t w or ke d w el l a ll th e ti m e (2 ) Y es , i t w or ke d w el l m os t o f t he ti m e (3 ) Y es , b ut it d id n ot w or k ve ry w el l a nd (4 ) N o P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts w h o h ad t h e fo llo w in g re so u rc es a va ila b le D es kt o p o r la p to p co m p u te rs Ta b le t d ev ic es Sm ar t p h o n es In te rn et t h at w o rk ed w el l al l o r m o st o f t h e ti m e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 8 2 (1 .2 ) 3 5 (1 .3 ) 9 6 (0 .4 ) 8 7 (0 .8 ) Sl ov en ia g a 9 5 (0 .5 ) 4 9 (1 .1 ) 9 5 (0 .5 ) 9 1 (0 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 8 9 (0 .7 ) 6 9 (1 .3 ) 8 2 (0 .9 ) 9 2 (0 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 3 9 (1 .6 ) 3 2 (1 .5 ) 9 3 (0 .7 ) 8 0 (1 .6 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 6 6 9 5 D en m ar k a 9 9 6 1 9 5 9 3 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 8 5 2 8 1 2 K en ya h 2 1 n 7 7 4 3 1 764 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 5: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s h av in g ac ce ss to th e fo llo w in g re so ur ce s a t h om e m os t o f t he ti m e or a lw ay s d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e (1 ) N ev er o r h ar dl y ev er (2 ) S om et im es (3 ) M os t o f t he ti m e an d (4 ) A lw ay s P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts t o w h o m t h e fo llo w in g ap p lie d m o st o f t h e ti m e o r al w ay s to t h ei r le ar n in g at h o m e H ad a q u ie t sp ac e to w o rk w it h a d es k an d c h ai r D id n o t h av e th e th in gs n ee d ed t o c o m p le te sc h o o lw o rk a t h o m e in participating countries reported they were at least part of the time frequently interrupted by other people when teaching or preparing lessons. In Ethiopia, more than two thirds of responding teachers supported this statement. While the majority of teachers from participating countries reported that it was at least part of the time easy to balance teaching with other responsibilities at home, more than 10% of teachers in every country reported that they did not find this balance easy. Schools had to remain flexible and often offered different arrangements to support teaching and learning during the disruption. School principals were asked if changes had been made to specific school policies and procedures during or following the disruption. The percentages of schools reporting on such changes are presented in Table 4.2.7. The majority of schools varied the school starting and break times between classes for different groups of students. More than four out of five schools in India, Rwanda, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay reported R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 8 3 (1 .0 ) 1 3 (0 .8 ) Sl ov en ia g a 7 8 (1 .0 ) 1 4 (0 .8 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 6 9 (1 .2 ) 1 5 (0 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 8 2 (1 .0 ) 1 5 (0 .9 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 2 2 2 6 D en m ar k a 8 1 1 1 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 3 0 2 7 K en ya h 2 1 n 2 9 3 665 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 2. 6: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s t o w ho m th e fo llo w in g w or ki ng c on di ti on s a pp lie d al l o f t he ti m e or p ar t o f t he ti m e du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es , a ll of th e ti m e (2 ) Y es , p ar t o f t he ti m e an d (3 ) N o P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s w it h t h e fo llo w in g p er so n al w o rk in g ci rc u m st an ce s al l o f t h e ti m e o r p ar t o f t h e ti m e Sc h o o l p ro vi d ed t h e o ffi ce in fr as tr u ct u re t o as si st w it h t ea ch in g fr o m h o m e O n e o r m o re c h ild re n at h o m e w h o w o u ld n o rm al ly b e in ch ild ca re o r p re -s ch o o l Fr eq u en tl y in te rr u p te d by o th er p eo p le in h o u se h o ld w h en te ac h in g o r p re p ar in g le ss o n s Fe lt it w as e as y to b al an ce t ea ch in g w o rk w it h o th er re sp o n si b ili ti es a t h o m e O n e o r m o re sc h o o l- ag ed c h ild re n a t h o m e w h o w er e b ei n g ta u gh t by r em o te le ar n in g In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 7 7 (4 .6 ) 5 1 (3 .9 ) 6 7 (4 .7 ) 5 5 (4 .9 ) 8 5 (4 .8 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 3 2 (2 .2 ) 2 5 (1 .5 ) 3 8 (1 .4 ) 4 4 (1 .8 ) 5 3 (1 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 5 5 (2 .9 ) 2 1 (1 .5 ) 4 8 (1 .8 ) 5 0 (1 .8 ) 7 3 (1 .3 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 7 5 (1 .5 ) 2 3 (1 .1 ) 4 5 (1 .3 ) 3 0 (1 .0 ) 8 4 (1 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 9 1 (1 .1 ) 2 9 (1 .4 ) 6 7 (1 .6 ) 3 0 (1 .4 ) 8 5 (1 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 0 2 0 2 6 4 2 5 8 D en m ar kg ,i 6 8 8 2 0 4 6 4 5 7 7 E th io p ia i 6 1 7 5 6 5 6 1 6 8 8 8 K en ya i e e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 k k k 5 1 6 066 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION implementing smaller class sizes, a measure less common in other countries. At the same time, a few schools across countries increased the number of teachers. The exceptions to this are Rwanda and Ethiopia, where almost half of the schools or more reported this. Supplementing face-to-face teaching with remote teaching and continued remote learning options for students were commonly implemented across countries, but with large variations between schools within and across countries. An exception is Burkina Faso, where mostly no teaching and learning took place during the disruption. REDS also asked school principals, if their schools’ capacity to deliver remote teaching was limited by certain factors. The available response options were “substantially limited,” “somewhat limited,” and “not limited.” The percentages of schools whose principals reported being at least somewhat limited by the specific factors are presented across the three parts of Table 4.2.8. It must be noted that the presented percentages are out of the schools offering teaching and learning provisions during the disruption. Although most students reported on having a well working internet connection available in all countries, except for responding students in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya (Table 4.2.5), it can be observed that in all countries except the United Arab Emirates (48%) and Denmark (27%) more than two thirds of the school principals reported that remote teaching was at least somewhat limited by a lack of students’ access to the internet. Similarly, 77% or more of school principals reported that remote teaching was at least somewhat limited by lack of students’ access to digital devices in all countries except the United Arab Emirates (50%) and Denmark (24%). Moreover, principals perceived a lack of teachers’ access to digital devices as limiting their school’s capacity to deliver remote teaching. In four of the eleven countries, more than half the principals that filled out the questionnaires, reported this as a limitation. Lack of school learning platforms and learning materials were also perceived to be a limitation for remote teaching by more than half the principals in seven of the 11 countries. In addition, reliability of internet services for students and teachers were reported as a limitation for remote teaching across participating countries. Moreover, privacy or online safety concerns, difficulty distributing hard-copy resources, and an inability to communicate with students and their families were factors reported as at least somewhat limiting the capability to teach remotely in many of the participating countries. In the third part of Table 4.2.8 a similar pattern was observed. Many of the school principals in participating countries reported remote teaching being somewhat limited by specific factors, especially by lack of teachers’ technical skills and their experience in remote teaching pedagogy. Online remote teaching depends on ICT resources. REDS asked school principals about their school’s provision of resources during the disruption period. To each of the statements, principals could respond “yes, this was already provided before the COVID-19 disruption,” “yes, this was provided during the COVID-19 disruptions,” or “no.” In Table 4.2.9 the percentages of schools (out of the schools offering teaching and learning provisions during the disruption) that provided ICT resources before or during the disruption are presented. Digital devices for some or all students and virtual learning environments or learning management systems seemed to be provided by most of the responding schools in Denmark, and most schools in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan. Principals in less than one third of schools in Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Rwanda, and in 14% of responding schools in Denmark reported that internet access was made available for some or all students. REDS was interested in collecting data on the support provided by schools for students to access lessons and learning materials remotely. School principals were asked if their schools provided a range of support resources to all students, to some students, or to none. In both parts of Table 4.2.10 the percentages of schools providing resources to all or some students are presented. In many schools in the participating countries, the learning materials were physically distributed. The lowest percentages (about 30%) were observed in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uzbekistan, while almost all schools in Ethiopia reported to have distributed materials physically. Live virtual lessons and teaching support were very common in most schools providing remote teaching in the participating countries, except for Kenya and Rwanda. One-to-one support was available67 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 7: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at m ad e sp ec ifi c ch an ge s t o sc ho ol p ol ic ie s a nd p ro ce du re s d ur in g or fo llo w in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o V ar ie d s ch o o l s ta rt in g ti m es fo r d if fe re n t gr o u p s o f s tu d en ts C o u n tr y V ar ie d b re ak t im es b et w ee n c la ss es fo r d if fe re n t gr o u p s o f st u d en ts Sm al le r cl as s si ze s C o n ti n u ed r em o te le ar n in g o p ti o n fo r st u d en ts Su p p le m en ti n g fa ce -t o -f ac e te ac h in g w it h r em o te t ea ch in g In cr ea se d n u m b er o f s ta ff B u rk in a F as o 1 7 (3 .7 ) 1 2 (3 .0 ) 2 6 (6 .1 ) 8 (2 .0 ) 5 (2 .1 ) 7 (1 .9 ) E th io p ia j 7 3 (4 .9 ) 7 0 (3 .9 ) 7 2 (3 .7 ) 4 9 (5 .3 ) 4 6 (3 .9 ) 5 3 (5 .3 ) In d ia 6 7 (7 .7 ) 6 8 (5 .0 ) 8 2 (7 .0 ) 3 6 (8 .3 ) 6 8 (8 .4 ) 7 3 (8 .6 ) K en ya g, j 4 8 (6 .9 ) 5 5 (6 .4 ) 5 1 (6 .6 ) 1 7 (3 .9 ) 2 2 (5 .1 ) 3 0 (5 .3 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 7 4 (5 .6 ) 7 1 (5 .1 ) 1 5 (4 .7 ) 6 (2 .6 ) 6 3 (5 .3 ) 6 1 (5 .3 ) R w an d a 7 4 (3 .4 ) 6 6 (3 .7 ) 8 2 (3 .5 ) 6 7 (3 .8 ) 5 1 (4 .6 ) 5 1 (4 .4 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 3 9 (3 .6 ) 6 2 (4 .8 ) 3 7 (5 .5 ) 1 1 (2 .7 ) 4 8 (5 .1 ) 3 6 (4 .7 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 7 (4 .6 ) 8 3 (4 .5 ) 9 6 (1 .2 ) 3 3 (5 .4 ) 9 6 (1 .6 ) 8 5 (4 .0 ) U ru gu ay g, j 9 6 (2 .2 ) 6 8 (6 .7 ) 9 3 (1 .8 ) 1 2 (3 .4 ) 8 9 (4 .1 ) 9 3 (3 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n j 8 3 (4 .7 ) 8 5 (4 .4 ) 6 3 (4 .6 ) 4 1 (5 .7 ) 7 2 (5 .9 ) 7 6 (4 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 8 0 n 7 6 n 5 7 n 4 1 n 2 3 n 5 3 n68 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 8: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls w ho se c ap ac it y to d el iv er re m ot e te ac hi ng w as su bs ta nt ia lly li m it ed o r s om ew ha t l im it ed (p ar t 1 o f 3 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly li m it ed (2 ) S om ew ha t l im it ed a nd (3 ) N ot li m it ed P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f p ri n ci p al s re p o rt in g b ei n g su b st an ti al ly li m it ed o r so m ew h at li m it ed b y th e fo llo w in g fa ct o rs La ck o f s tu d en t ac ce ss to d ig it al d ev ic es La ck o f t ea ch er ac ce ss t o d ig it al d ev ic es La ck (o r p o o r q u al it y) o f L ea rn in g M an ag em en t Sy st em s o r sc h o o l l ea rn in g p la tf o rm s La ck o f l ea rn in g m at er ia ls fo r re m o te t ea ch in g La ck o f s tu d en t ac ce ss to t h e in te rn et B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 8 0 (5 .4 ) 7 9 (5 .5 ) 7 3 (5 .9 ) k 7 2 (6 .3 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 9 7 (1 .7 ) 5 7 (1 0 .1 ) 9 2 (5 .2 ) k 6 5 (7 .6 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 9 0 (7 .4 ) 7 7 (9 .7 ) 9 1 (7 .3 ) 8 7 (7 .9 ) 7 1 ( 1 0 .1 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 8 0 (4 .4 ) 3 9 (5 .4 ) 8 1 (3 .7 ) 7 0 (5 .7 ) 5 7 (5 .6 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 9 2 (5 .0 ) 6 6 (7 .5 ) 9 6 (3 .1 ) 7 9 (6 .7 ) 6 8 (7 .9 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 9 2 (2 .7 ) 4 2 (4 .3 ) 7 7 (5 .2 ) 7 3 (4 .7 ) 6 7 (5 .4 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 5 0 (5 .9 ) 2 5 (5 .1 ) 4 8 (5 .6 ) 2 5 (4 .1 ) 3 3 (5 .1 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 8 0 (5 .4 ) 3 5 (4 .8 ) 7 9 (5 .3 ) 3 8 (4 .1 ) 4 2 (6 .8 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 7 7 (3 .6 ) 4 8 (5 .1 ) 7 3 (4 .4 ) 5 0 (4 .7 ) 4 8 (5 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 2 4 n 2 n 2 7 n 4 0 n 4 8 n69 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c Th is q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f p ri n ci p al s re p o rt in g b ei n g su b st an ti al ly li m it ed o r so m ew h at li m it ed b y th e fo llo w in g fa ct o rs R el ia b ili ty a n d /o r ca p ac it y o f i n te rn et se rv ic es fo r st u d en ts R el ia b ili ty a n d /o r ca p ac it y o f i n te rn et se rv ic es fo r te ac h er s D if fi cu lt y d is tr ib u ti n g h ar d -c o py r es o u rc es In ab ili ty t o co m m u n ic at e w it h st u d en ts a n d fa m ili es P ri va cy /o n lin e sa fe ty c o n ce rn s Ta b le 4 .2 .8 : P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls w ho se c ap ac it y to d el iv er re m ot e te ac hi ng w as su bs ta nt ia lly li m it ed o r s om ew ha t l im it ed (p ar t 2 o f 3 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly li m it ed (2 ) S om ew ha t l im it ed a nd (3 ) N ot li m it ed B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 7 0 (5 .9 ) 7 4 (6 .2 ) 6 3 (6 .8 ) 7 0 (5 .9 ) 8 7 (4 .3 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 9 3 (2 .9 ) 8 3 (7 .0 ) 7 4 (9 .8 ) 6 8 (8 .2 ) 8 9 (4 .4 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 9 1 (7 .3 ) 8 5 (7 .8 ) 7 2 ( 1 0 .5 ) 8 4 (7 .9 ) 8 0 (9 .7 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 9 0 (3 .1 ) 6 9 (4 .8 ) 4 5 (5 .8 ) 5 3 (6 .1 ) 7 6 (5 .1 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 9 6 (3 .0 ) 8 7 (5 .7 ) 8 1 (5 .8 ) 8 5 (5 .7 ) 8 8 (5 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 9 3 (2 .6 ) 5 9 (4 .9 ) 7 9 (4 .2 ) 6 8 (5 .2 ) 8 3 (4 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 5 3 (6 .3 ) 3 7 (5 .8 ) 4 8 (5 .3 ) 6 5 (4 .7 ) 3 3 (5 .1 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 6 3 (5 .9 ) 4 6 (4 .8 ) 5 8 (5 .7 ) 5 2 (6 .1 ) 5 3 (4 .8 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 6 6 (3 .7 ) 5 4 (5 .2 ) 4 1 (4 .8 ) 8 9 (2 .9 ) 7 0 (4 .5 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 5 4 n 2 2 n 2 2 n 6 0 n 1 8 n70 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 8: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls w ho se c ap ac it y to d el iv er re m ot e te ac hi ng w as s ub st an ti al ly li m it ed o r s om ew ha t l im it ed b y th e fo llo w in g fa ct or s ( pa rt 3 o f 3 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly li m it ed (2 ) S om ew ha t l im it ed a nd (3 ) N ot li m it ed P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f p ri n ci p al s re p o rt in g b ei n g su b st an ti al ly li m it ed o r so m ew h at li m it ed b y th e fo llo w in g fa ct o rs La ck o f t ea ch er te ch n ic al s ki lls t o m an ag e re m ot e te ac hi ng La ck o f t ea ch er ex p er ie n ce in r em o te te ac h in g p ed ag o gy C o n ce rn s ab o u t p ro vi d in g eq u it ab le te ac h in g to a ll st u d en ts P o lic ie s th at li m it t h e u se o f o n lin e to o ls La rg e cl as s si ze s B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 6 7 (6 .2 ) 6 8 (5 .9 ) 7 1 (5 .6 ) 7 0 (6 .1 ) 7 0 (6 .6 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 6 2 (9 .0 ) 6 1 (7 .9 ) 6 6 (8 .6 ) 7 3 (1 0 .1 ) 7 7 (8 .5 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 8 0 (8 .9 ) 8 1 (8 .2 ) 7 2 ( 1 0 .7 ) 7 5 (1 0 .3 ) 8 6 (8 .0 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 8 2 (4 .1 ) 8 0 (4 .0 ) 4 3 (5 .2 ) 6 4 (6 .3 ) 6 9 (5 .1 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 8 6 (5 .6 ) 8 2 (5 .9 ) 7 6 (7 .7 ) 7 8 (7 .0 ) 7 3 (6 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 9 4 (3 .1 ) 9 6 (2 .9 ) 6 1 (4 .1 ) 9 6 (2 .9 ) 8 3 (4 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 5 2 (5 .0 ) 4 9 (5 .3 ) 4 7 (5 .5 ) 5 5 (4 .4 ) 5 0 (5 .4 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 8 5 (6 .1 ) 9 1 (3 .1 ) 3 5 (4 .3 ) 7 0 (4 .8 ) 4 4 (5 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 6 1 (5 .2 ) 5 0 (5 .6 ) 5 8 (4 .7 ) 4 7 (5 .3 ) 3 3 (5 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 6 0 n 7 8 n 2 0 n 7 2 n 4 0 n71 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 9: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls p ro vi di ng th e fo llo w in g re so ur ce s be fo re o r d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es , t hi s w as a lr ea dy p ro vi de d be fo re th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (2 ) Y es , t hi s w as p ro vi de d du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on a nd (3 ) N o P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f p ri n ci p al s re p o rt in g av ai la b ili ty o f t h e fo llo w in g re so u rc es b ef o re o r d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 In te rn et a cc es s fo r so m e o r al l s tu d en ts D ig it al d ev ic es fo r so m e o r al l s tu d en ts V ir tu al L ea rn in g E nv ir o n m en t o r Le ar n in g M an ag em en t Sy st em So ft w ar e o r p ro gr am m es to e n su re o n lin e se cu ri ty an d s af et y B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 1 7 (4 .6 ) 2 0 (4 .8 ) k 1 5 (4 .2 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 3 2 (8 .2 ) 3 4 (8 .8 ) k 3 1 (7 .8 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 1 3 (5 .5 ) 2 8 (6 .5 ) 1 8 (8 .0 ) 1 9 (8 .2 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 4 6 (5 .3 ) 6 2 (5 .5 ) 8 2 (5 .0 ) 5 0 (5 .0 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 2 9 (7 .3 ) 2 9 (7 .1 ) 4 1 (6 .9 ) 3 2 (7 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 8 3 (3 .8 ) 8 3 (4 .3 ) 9 0 (2 .4 ) 8 0 (3 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 7 3 (4 .1 ) 7 4 (4 .1 ) 9 6 (2 .1 ) 9 3 (2 .1 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 6 2 (6 .1 ) 7 0 (5 .4 ) 9 4 (2 .8 ) 2 7 (5 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 8 5 (3 .2 ) 6 1 (5 .7 ) 7 9 (4 .4 ) 7 0 (4 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 1 4 n 9 4 n 9 6 n 6 4 n72 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION to all or some students in the vast majority of schools, except in Ethiopia and Kenya. Recorded lessons were rarely available to all or some students in Kenya but were available in most schools in the other participating countries. Support for using audio or video lessons by external providers (internet-streamed, terrestrial/digital television, and radio broadcast) were commonly available to all or some students in most schools from participating countries, however with a large varying focus on specific lesson types in different countries. General impact The teaching and learning during the COVID-19 disruption deviated largely from teaching and learning in regular schooling before the disruption. Schools adapted to the changing circumstances with different speeds, based on the school and student resources available. Accessible resources varied between schools, teachers, and students across and within participating countries, as described previously. This section sheds some light on students’, teachers’, and schools’ perspectives on the impact of the adjustments that were implemented to teaching and learning during the COVID-19 disruption across the participating countries. REDS asked students about changes in their perceptions of certain aspects of their schoolwork during the COVID-19 disruption. The available response options were “increased during the COVID-19 disruption,” “did not change during the COVID-19 disruption,” and “decreased during the COVID-19 disruption.” Table 4.2.11 presents the percentages of students who reported an increase in certain aspects of their schoolwork from students who reported doing schoolwork during the disruption period. Increased motivation to complete schoolwork ranged from 14% for responding students in Denmark to 46% for students in Uzbekistan. Similarly, across countries about one fifth of students reported an increase in their ability to keep up with schoolwork, increased confidence in completing schoolwork, increased capacity to plan the completion of schoolwork, and an increased quality of their schoolwork. The highest percentage of students that reported an increase in all the mentioned aspects relating to schoolwork was observed in Uzbekistan. While it is pleasing that some students within countries reported that the experience of remote learning positively influenced their schoolwork, there remained large proportions of students for whom this was not true. Additionally, students were asked about their agreement with statements regarding their learning progress, the available response options were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Table 4.2.12 shows the percentages of students that agreed or strongly agreed with the statements, out of the ones that did schoolwork during the disruption. More than half of the students from the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and responding students from Ethiopia agreed or strongly agreed that they learned as much as before the disruption as they did during. These percentages are lower for responding students in Burkina Faso (27%), Denmark (39%), and Kenya (30%). The distribution of responses is similar for students who agreed with the statement that they made more progress in some subjects compared to before the disruption. While these responses suggest that remote learning worked well for many students in terms of learning outcomes, there were also notable proportions of students in all countries disagreeing with these statements. Furthermore, about half of the students across countries agreed, it became more difficult to use teacher’s feedback to improve their own work and more difficult to know how well they were progressing. The last aspect was especially present in Denmark, where more than two thirds of responding students agreed with this statement. The COVID-19 disruption required teachers to adapt their teaching to function effectively under the changed conditions. REDS asked teachers to express their agreement with statements regarding their planning and delivery of curriculum content to their class during the disruption the available response options were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” The percentages of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statements are presented in the two parts of Table 4.2.13. Out of the teachers that taught remotely, most teachers in India, the United Arab Emirates, and responding teachers in Burkina Faso reported being able to deliver the curriculum content at the same pace as before the disruption. In all countries, more than half of the teachers reported they reduced the curriculum content to the most essential elements. This was especially the case in Slovenia and for responding teachers from Uruguay. The majority73 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 10 : P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at m ad e th e fo llo w in g re so ur ce s a va ila bl e to a ll or so m e st ud en ts d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es , t o al l s tu de nt s ( 2) Y es , t o so m e st ud en ts a nd (3 ) N o P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f p ri n ci p al s re p o rt in g av ai la b ili ty o f t h e fo llo w in g re so u rc es t o a ll o r so m e st u d en ts P hy si ca lly d is tr ib u te d le ar n in g m at er ia ls Li ve v ir tu al le ss o n s d el iv er ed b y st u d en ts ’ te ac h er s Li ve v ir tu al te ac hi ng s up po rt by s tu de nt s’ te ac he rs o ut si de o f sc he du le d le ss on ti m es O n e- to -o n e su p p o rt B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 9 2 (2 .9 ) 6 8 (5 .3 ) 6 1 (5 .8 ) 4 5 (6 .7 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 7 2 (7 .3 ) 7 4 (4 .5 ) 7 5 (4 .7 ) 8 2 (7 .5 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 2 9 (8 .9 ) 9 (4 .6 ) 9 (4 .5 ) 1 5 (5 .7 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 6 6 (4 .6 ) 8 8 (4 .3 ) 9 0 (3 .9 ) 9 9 (0 .5 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 3 0 (7 .6 ) 2 8 (6 .2 ) 3 1 (8 .0 ) 6 4 (7 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 6 9 (5 .3 ) 9 2 (2 .5 ) 8 4 (3 .3 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 5 2 (5 .4 ) 1 0 0 (0 .3 ) 9 8 (0 .9 ) 9 7 (1 .5 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 6 8 (6 .8 ) 9 8 (1 .3 ) 7 6 (5 .5 ) 9 2 (3 .5 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 3 5 (5 .2 ) 7 5 (4 .8 ) 7 2 (5 .1 ) 9 5 (2 .1 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 9 4 n 1 0 0 n 8 6 n 1 0 0 n74 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 10 : P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at m ad e ce rt ai n re so ur ce s a va ila bl e to a ll or so m e st ud en ts d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es , t o al l s tu de nt s ( 2) Y es , t o so m e st ud en ts a nd (3 ) N o P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y R ec o rd ed le ss o n s cr ea te d by t ea ch er s Su p p o rt t o u se in te rn et -s tr ea m ed au d io o r vi d eo le ss o n s Su p p o rt t o u se a u d io o r vi d eo le ss o n s p ro vi d ed a s te rr es tr ia l/ d ig it al te le vi si o n o r ra d io b ro ad ca st s O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f p ri n ci p al s re p o rt in g av ai la b ili ty o f t h e fo llo w in g re so u rc es t o a ll o r so m e st u d en ts B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 5 6 (6 .3 ) 2 4 (6 .4 ) 6 0 (5 .6 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 7 8 (7 .8 ) 8 3 (4 .3 ) 6 5 (1 0 .4 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 1 2 (4 .9 ) 1 9 (8 .3 ) 3 0 (7 .3 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 7 7 (4 .7 ) 8 1 (4 .5 ) 6 9 (5 .4 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 6 2 (7 .7 ) 4 9 (7 .5 ) 5 0 (7 .9 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 9 1 (2 .8 ) 9 6 (1 .4 ) 6 3 (5 .9 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 9 5 (2 .0 ) 9 8 (0 .7 ) 6 3 (5 .7 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 7 8 (6 .3 ) 6 8 (5 .6 ) 1 1 (3 .5 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 9 2 (3 .0 ) 9 7 (1 .6 ) 9 7 (2 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 7 1 n 7 6 n 6 5 n75 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION of teachers in most countries also reported that they followed the regular curriculum content without change. Together, these findings suggest that, while most teachers did not deviate from the regular curriculum content during the disruption, they also choose to focus on the essential core elements of the curriculum in their teaching during the disruption period. Furthermore, most teachers in most countries reported that they also taught highly modified components of the practical curriculum. These data suggest that there may have been less breadth in the curriculum being delivered within subjects during the disruption period than during regular schooling. Most teachers across countries reported using more time to adapt and plan lessons in comparison to before the disruption. However, most teachers expressed that they were able to deliver enough content for students to meet the requirements of the curriculum. The responses point to a high engagement of many teachers across countries who addressed the challenges of the pandemic with adjusted content and methods of teaching to cope with the altered circumstances caused by the disruption. REDS further inquired about teachers’ impressions regarding the quality of teaching and learning of their class during the disruption. They were asked to express their agreement with different statements using the following response option “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” or “strongly disagree.” In Table 4.2.14 the percentages of teachers teaching remotely that agreed or strongly agreed with the statements are presented. More than half of teachers in India, the Russian Federation, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan reported that they were able to teach to the same standard as before the COVID-19 disruption. Less than half of responding teachers in the remaining countries expressed agreement with this statement, ranging between 22% in Uruguay and 49% in Ethiopia. In all countries only about, or significantly less than, half of the teachers reported their students to have shown the same rate of learning growth as before the disruption, with the lowest rate in Uruguay, where just 9% of responding teachers expressed agreement with this statement. More than half of teachers across participating countries agreed that their students were able to access necessary teaching and learning resources. Burkina Faso is an exception to this, where only 42% of responding teachers expressed their agreement. Most teachers across countries agreed that the materials they provided enabled students to work independently. To assess whether the changed teaching and learning arrangements might have influenced student learning engagement, REDS asked teachers to report on the changes regarding specific aspects of student learning and engagement in their class in comparison with the time before the disruption. The available response options were “substantially increased,” “increased to some degree,” “did not change,” “decreased to some degree,” and “substantially decreased.” In Table 4.2.15 the percentages of teachers reporting a decrease in specific aspects of learning and engagement are presented. Teachers from participating countries who were teaching their class remotely during the disruption reported a decrease in student attendance, which is in line with the difficult schooling situation caused by school closures. In addition, more than half of the teachers in the Russian Federation and Uzbekistan, most teachers from Slovenia, and most responding teachers from Burkina Faso, Denmark, Ethiopia, and Uruguay reported decreases in student learning. Student engagement during lessons was also reported by teachers as having decreased. About half or more of teachers in all countries except India reported decreases in student engagement. In India, this was reported by approximately one fifth of teachers. Many teachers further reported that the amount of work students produced decreased (ranging from 30% of teachers in India to 79% in Slovenia). Finally, about one fifth of teachers from participating countries reported on a decrease in student discipline. These results reflect the effects of the changed teaching and learning conditions across countries during the pandemic on teachers’ perceptions of their students’ productivity and motivation. Regarding learning and learning growth overall, teachers seem to have more pessimistic views than their students. While most teachers in most countries reported students’ learning decreasing during the disruption period (see table 4.2.15), most students in most countries reported that they made more progress in some subjects during the period of disruption than before the disruption (see table 4.2.12). Changes in teachers’ workload associated with the disruption were also of interest in REDS. School76 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 11 : P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s r ep or ti ng a n in cr ea se in th e fo llo w in g as pe ct s o f t he ir sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) I nc re as ed d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (2 ) D id n ot c ha ng e du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on a nd (3 ) D ec re as ed d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk at a ll d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts r ep o rt in g an in cr ea se d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n in t h e fo llo w in g as p ec ts o f t h ei r sc h o o lw o rk M ot iv at io n to co m pl et e sc ho ol w or k A b ili ty t o k ee p u p w it h sc h o o lw o rk C ap ac it y to p la n th e co m p le ti o n o f sc h o o lw o rk T h e q u al it y o f m y sc h o o lw o rk C o n fi d en ce in co m p le ti n g sc h o o lw o rk R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 3 0 (0 .9 ) 3 2 (1 .0 ) 3 6 (1 .1 ) 3 7 (1 .0 ) 3 7 (1 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g a 1 7 (0 .9 ) 2 0 (1 .0 ) 2 2 (1 .0 ) 2 7 (1 .2 ) 2 3 (1 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 3 1 (1 .5 ) 3 3 (1 .2 ) 3 8 (1 .3 ) 3 4 (1 .6 ) 3 7 (1 .3 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 4 6 (1 .4 ) 4 3 (1 .3 ) 4 9 (1 .3 ) 4 8 (1 .3 ) 3 7 (1 .2 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 1 9 1 5 2 3 1 1 1 7 D en m ar k a 1 4 2 6 1 7 2 4 1 6 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 2 6 2 9 3 0 2 8 2 6 K en ya h 2 1 n 1 9 2 2 2 4 2 0 1 977 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 12 : P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts a bo ut th ei r l ea rn in g pr og re ss d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts a gr ee in g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts a b o u t th ei r le ar n in g p ro gr es s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n I l ea rn ed a b o u t as m u ch as b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n I m ad e m o re p ro gr es s in so m e su b je ct s th an b ef o re th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n It b ec am e m or e di ffi cu lt to us e m y te ac he rs ’ f ee db ac k to im pr ov e m y w or k It b ec am e m o re d if fi cu lt t o kn o w h o w w el l I w as p ro gr es si n g R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 6 5 (1 .0 ) 6 6 (1 .1 ) 5 1 (1 .2 ) 5 0 (1 .3 ) Sl ov en ia g a 5 3 (1 .2 ) 6 5 (1 .0 ) 4 9 (1 .1 ) 6 0 (1 .0 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 6 3 (1 .1 ) 6 7 (1 .2 ) 4 5 (1 .1 ) 5 2 (1 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 8 3 (1 .3 ) 6 6 (1 .3 ) 4 5 (1 .3 ) 4 7 (1 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 2 7 3 5 4 3 5 0 D en m ar k a 3 9 5 6 5 6 7 3 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 5 2 5 0 5 3 5 4 K en ya h 2 1 n 3 0 3 4 5 7 5 778 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 2. 13 : P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s a gr ee in g or st ro ng ly a gr ee in g w it h st at em en ts re ga rd in g th e de liv er y an d pl an ni ng o f c ur ri cu lu m c on te nt to th ei r c la ss d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s ag re ei n g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts I f ol lo w ed th e re gu la r cu rr ic ul um c on te nt w it ho ut c ha ng e I w as a b le t o d el iv er th e cu rr ic u lu m c o n te n t at t h e sa m e p ac e as I d id b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n I w as a b le t o t ea ch cu rr ic u lu m c o n te n t re la ti n g to p ra ct ic al sk ill s an d a ct iv it ie s I t au gh t h ig h ly m o d ifi ed p ra ct ic al co m p o n en ts o f t h e cu rr ic u lu m c o n te n t I r ed u ce d t h e cu rr ic u lu m c o n te n t to th e m o st e ss en ti al el em en ts In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 8 2 (5 .9 ) 7 1 (8 .6 ) 7 6 (4 .2 ) 6 8 (1 0 .2 ) 6 5 ( 1 0 .3 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 5 5 (1 .5 ) 5 2 (1 .8 ) 5 4 (1 .8 ) 6 0 (1 .7 ) 4 9 (1 .5 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 2 8 (1 .4 ) 1 3 (1 .2 ) 8 9 (1 .3 ) 3 5 (1 .5 ) 8 7 (1 .7 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 6 5 (1 .4 ) 6 2 (1 .7 ) 5 3 (1 .9 ) 7 6 (1 .8 ) 7 4 (2 .8 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 7 8 (1 .6 ) 6 9 (1 .7 ) 4 6 (1 .5 ) 8 2 (1 .4 ) 6 9 (1 .6 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 7 7 3 8 5 6 6 8 6 1 D en m ar kg ,i 6 4 4 2 0 7 2 4 7 7 9 E th io p ia i 6 1 4 7 4 9 7 1 6 9 6 4 K en ya i e e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 2 2 1 8 8 8 k k79 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . Ta bl e 4. 2. 13 : P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s a gr ee in g or st ro ng ly a gr ee in g w it h st at em en ts re ga rd in g th e de liv er y an d pl an ni ng o f c ur ri cu lu m c on te nt to th ei r c la ss d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s ag re ei n g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts I h ad to m od if y th e cu rr ic ul um c on te nt fo r in di vi du al s tu de nt s in ne w w ay s fo r th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru pt io n It t o o k ti m e to a d ap t m y le ss o n s to a n ew d el iv er y m o d e I d ev el o p ed le ss o n s w it h c o n te n t th at w as o u ts id e th e fo rm al cu rr ic u lu m I w as a b le t o d el iv er en o u gh c o n te n t to m y st u d en ts t o m ee t th e re q u ir em en ts o f t h e cu rr ic u lu m I s p en t m o re t im e p la n n in g le ss o n s th an b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 6 4 (8 .2 ) 7 7 (7 .4 ) 8 0 (3 .9 ) 7 0 (4 .6 ) 8 1 (6 .5 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 6 2 (1 .8 ) 9 0 (1 .0 ) 8 7 (1 .4 ) 5 1 (1 .9 ) 8 7 (1 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 9 0 (1 .1 ) 9 3 (1 .1 ) 9 4 (0 .7 ) 4 2 (2 .0 ) 8 8 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 8 1 (1 .3 ) 8 1 (1 .1 ) 8 3 (2 .2 ) 6 3 (1 .5 ) 9 2 (2 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 8 2 (1 .2 ) 7 7 (1 .3 ) 7 9 (1 .0 ) 3 9 (1 .5 ) 8 1 (1 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 3 4 8 4 6 8 2 6 7 4 D en m ar kg ,i 6 8 0 8 7 7 9 3 0 6 1 E th io p ia i 6 1 6 7 7 8 6 3 5 7 6 4 K en ya i e e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 8 6 8 0 9 2 4 2 7 980 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . Ta bl e 4. 2. 14 : P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s a gr ee in g or st ro ng ly a gr ee in g w it h st at em en ts a bo ut th e qu al it y of te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng in th ei r c la ss d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s ag re ei n g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts I h av e b ee n a b le t o t ea ch to t h e sa m e st an d ar d a s b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n M y st u d en ts h av e sh o w n th e sa m e ra te o f l ea rn in g gr o w th a s b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n M y st ud en ts h av e be en a bl e to a cc es s th e ne ce ss ar y te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng re so ur ce s T h e m at er ia ls I h av e p ro vi d ed t o m y st u d en ts h av e en ab le d t h em t o w o rk in d ep en d en tl y In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 6 6 (9 .0 ) 4 9 (8 .6 ) 5 9 (9 .6 ) 7 3 (8 .4 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 6 0 (1 .9 ) 3 2 (1 .9 ) 7 5 (1 .8 ) 8 9 (0 .8 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 3 2 (1 .8 ) 1 9 (1 .1 ) 9 0 (0 .9 ) 9 8 (0 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 7 7 (2 .3 ) 5 9 (2 .0 ) 9 3 (0 .9 ) 9 6 (0 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 5 8 (1 .8 ) 5 5 (1 .5 ) 7 2 (1 .5 ) 9 1 (0 .7 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 4 4 3 1 4 2 6 5 D en m ar kg ,i 6 3 5 2 9 8 0 9 1 E th io p ia i 6 1 4 9 4 1 5 5 5 8 K en ya i e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 2 2 9 5 2 8 081 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION principals were asked about changes in the allocation of time given to teachers for typical work activities compared to before the disruption, the available response options were “substantially increased,” “increased to some degree,” “did not change,” “decreased to some degree,” and “substantially decreased.” In Table 4.2.17 the percentages of schools reporting an increase in the time allocated for teacher activities (out of the schools that offered teaching during disruption) are presented. An increase of time is observed in many schools across countries for all typical teacher activities (i.e., delivering teaching, preparing lessons, assessing student task completion, and professional development). The percentages of schools reporting increases are especially high in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, and Uruguay, but smallest in Kenya. Finally, a positive finding is that the time allocated for professional development activities significantly increased across countries, signaling teachers had opportunities to develop specific skills, an effect that will likely endure beyond the disruption.82 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 15 : P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s r ep or ti ng a d ec re as e to s o m e d eg re e o r su b st an ti al d ec re as e in a sp ec ts o f s tu de nt le ar ni ng a nd e ng ag em en t i n co m pa ri so n w it h th e ti m e be fo re th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s re p o rt in g a d ec re as e to s o m e d eg re e o r su b st an ti al d ec re as e in t h e fo llo w in g as p ec ts St ud en t a tt en da nc e St u d en t le ar n in g T h e am o u n t o f w o rk st u d en ts p ro d u ce d St u d en t d is ci p lin e St u d en t en ga ge m en t d u ri n g le ss o n s In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 2 5 n (3 .1 ) 3 0 n (3 .0 ) 2 1 n (2 .6 ) 3 0 n (3 .8 ) 4 7 n (4 .6 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 4 7 (1 .8 ) 5 3 (2 .0 ) 5 8 (1 .6 ) 4 3 (2 .0 ) 3 2 (1 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 5 0 (2 .1 ) 8 2 (1 .3 ) 7 5 (2 .0 ) 7 9 (1 .8 ) 2 5 (1 .4 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 3 8 (2 .2 ) 3 7 (1 .6 ) 4 7 (1 .7 ) 4 2 (1 .6 ) 2 0 (1 .5 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 5 6 (1 .9 ) 5 3 (1 .7 ) 5 5 (1 .7 ) 4 5 (1 .7 ) 3 4 (1 .8 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 6 8 6 4 6 4 6 4 2 0 D en m ar kg ,i 6 2 5 6 4 6 2 5 4 2 3 E th io p ia i 6 1 5 1 5 5 4 9 4 8 3 7 K en ya i e e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 8 5 7 8 7 9 6 7 3 083 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 2. 16 : P er ce nt ag es o f p ri nc ip al s r ep or ti ng a n in cr ea se in th e ti m e al lo ca te d to te ac he rs fo r c er ta in a ct iv it ie s i n co m pa ri so n to b ef or e th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f p ri n ci p al s re p o rt in g an in cr ea se in t im e al lo ca te d t o t ea ch er s fo r th e fo llo w in g ac ti vi ti es D el iv er in g te ac h in g P re p ar in g le ss o n s A ss es si ng s tu de nt ta sk co m pl et io n P ro fe ss io n al d ev el o p m en t ac ti vi ti es B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 4 6 (6 .2 ) 4 4 (6 .1 ) 2 7 (6 .4 ) 3 7 (5 .9 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 4 1 (7 .5 ) 4 8 (7 .6 ) 3 7 (8 .8 ) 4 1 (7 .6 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 8 (4 .0 ) 1 2 (4 .6 ) 8 (4 .0 ) 1 2 (5 .0 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 5 5 (5 .4 ) 9 3 (2 .8 ) 9 5 (1 .5 ) 5 3 (5 .5 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 4 3 (8 .0 ) 3 9 (7 .9 ) 3 8 (7 .3 ) 3 8 (7 .5 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 3 3 (4 .0 ) 9 6 (2 .0 ) 8 7 (3 .9 ) 7 0 (5 .3 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 5 1 (5 .8 ) 7 9 (4 .5 ) 7 3 (5 .0 ) 7 2 (4 .4 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 4 6 (5 .5 ) 8 5 (5 .6 ) 8 0 (4 .2 ) 6 1 (6 .4 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 4 9 (5 .2 ) 5 9 (5 .3 ) 4 2 (4 .7 ) 1 3 (3 .1 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 1 8 n 4 9 n 2 7 n k84 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION 4.3 Communication, feedback, and assessment Minge Chen, Alec I. Kennedy, Sabine Meinck, Mojca Rožman Section highlights As schools switched from traditional in-person instruction to remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they were faced with the challenge of maintaining contact with their staff, students, and families. Schooling communities found new ways to maintain contact during the disruption. • Most students in the countries where all students continued to complete schoolwork during the COVID-19 disruption, reported that they engaged in some form of online communication with teachers and classmates. • In most countries, students received school-related information and learning materials online. However, in some countries, students reported that delivery or pickup options were used. • In most countries, many teachers reported that the time spent in communication with parents increased during the disruption. Communication with parents/guardians mainly took place online or over the phone as opposed to in-person. Teachers continued to provide feedback to students. • Many students in the countries where all students continued to complete schoolwork during the COVID-19 disruption reported receiving feedback from teachers on their schoolwork through multiple methods: verbally, scores/grades, or written. • Teachers in most of the countries where all students continued to complete schoolwork during the COVID-19 disruption reported that the frequency and amount of feedback that they provided students increased. Assessments of students learning were still expected during the COVID-19 disruption. • In almost all participating countries, teachers reported that it was necessary to adapt the assessments that had been commonly used prior to the disruption. Teachers noted difficulties in assessing students with special needs or practical aspects of student work. • In most countries, many schools reported that there was a shift in focus from summative to formative assessments, a change from grading students to offering more informal feedback, and a reduction in reporting requirements.85 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Introduction School closures (partial and complete) and the transition to various methods of remote teaching and learning obliged schools to adapt the ways in which schools, teachers, students, and families communicated. Before the COVID-19 disruption, digitalization in teaching and learning had already been integrated into traditional schooling, especially in more developed countries (Fraillon et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic urgently accelerated the need for many countries to make more extensive use of ICT-based communication across members within school communities. Given the lack of face-to-face options during school closures and due to social distancing measures, many countries’ schools turned to digital methods to communicate information, offer feedback, and assess student learning (World Bank, 2020). REDS is interested in understanding how this transition took place in all participating countries, regardless of their existing digital infrastructure or the degree to which they consequently relied on implementing ICT-based or non-ICT-based solutions. REDS investigated how various stakeholders implemented and experienced these changes within the participating countries. This section begins with presenting how students maintained contact with school staff during the COVID-19 disruption, then it reports on how teachers’ and principals’ communication with other school staff, families, and students changed during the disruption, finally, it examines the ways in which teachers provided student feedback and assessed student learning. This section addresses the REDS research question: What were the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning, and how were these mitigated by measures at the school level. It focuses on the means of communication among students, parents, and schools, as well as on feedback mechanisms and assessment. Communication With face-to-face communication much more difficult in remote learning contexts than in regular schooling; students, teachers, parents, and schools all had to adjust the ways in which they remained connected during the COVID-19 disruption. In REDS, students were asked how they communicated with their teachers and classmates during the disruption. The means of communication listed in the study include videoconferencing, emails, phone calls, and general communication via computer. When asked about how often they communicated with teachers and classmates through various means, students reported their experiences according to four response categories (“often,” “sometimes,” “rarely,” and “never”). Table 4.3.1 reports only the percentages of students responding that used each mode of communication either “sometimes” or “often.” In Denmark, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan15, over half of students (or responding students, in the case of Denmark) used video conferencing to communicate with their classmates during lessons at least sometimes, or a computer to share ideas on schoolwork. In those same countries, except for Denmark, nearly two thirds of students reported using email to communicate with their teachers, with individual videoconferencing sessions with their teachers being less common. The percentages of students who reported communicating with teachers over the phone varied across countries. Fewer than 15% of students in Slovenia as well as students responding to the survey in Denmark and Burkina Faso reported using the telephone to communicate with their teacher, while, in Uzbekistan, 81% of students said that they, at least sometimes, had a phone conversation with a teacher. A notable portion of student respondents in Burkina Faso (85%), Ethiopia (44%), and Kenya (21%) reported that they did not do any schoolwork during the COVID-19 disruption. In these countries, only very small proportions of the remaining student respondents ( 80%) of students (or student respondents, in Denmark) reported receiving their teachers’ feedback through scores/grades and written feedback. In these countries, half or more of students (or student respondents, in Denmark) also reported that they received spoken feedback (individually or in groups) and feedback recorded on a school-based learning management system. Student respondents in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya (where not all students were reported to have been doing schoolwork during the disruption) reported experiencing each of the above-mentioned forms of feedback less frequently than the students (and student respondents) in countries where all students were reported to have been doing schoolwork during the disruption. Teachers were also asked to reflect on the changes they made in regard to how they provided feedback to students during the COVID-19 disruption. Specifically, they were asked whether the frequency of using certain forms of feedback increased and whether their workload associated with providing student feedback increased during the disruption period. Teachers reported their experiences using five response categories (“substantially increased,” “increased to some degree,” “did not change,” “decreased to some degree,” and “substantially decreased”). Table 4.3.8 presents percentages of teachers reporting increases. Among the teachers (or teacher respondents) who engaged in remote teaching, in almost all the participating countries between about a93 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 3. 5: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls re po rt in g an in cr ea se in ti m e al lo ca te d to te ac he rs fo r c om m un ic at io n R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y M ee ti n gs w it h s ch o o l s ta ff P ar en t/ gu ar d ia n m ee ti n gs P ro vi d in g st u d en t fe ed b ac k O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls r ep o rt in g an in cr ea se in t im e al lo ca te d t o t ea ch er s fo r th e fo llo w in g ac ti vi ti es B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 3 7 (5 .8 ) 2 7 (5 .5 ) 3 4 (5 .9 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 4 3 (7 .5 ) 4 3 (7 .7 ) 3 8 (7 .9 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 5 (3 .2 ) 4 (3 .1 ) 1 2 (5 .1 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 3 4 (5 .6 ) 2 9 (5 .5 ) 8 6 (4 .3 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 3 1 (6 .6 ) 3 1 (7 .3 ) 4 0 (7 .4 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 7 0 (5 .1 ) 8 1 (3 .7 ) 9 1 (3 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 5 0 (5 .1 ) 5 1 (5 .5 ) 7 2 (3 .7 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 6 8 (4 .0 ) 3 4 (6 .8 ) 7 0 (6 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 1 0 (3 .8 ) 1 0 (3 .9 ) 4 3 (4 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 2 n 2 n 3 9 n94 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 3. 6: T he in cr ea se in ti m e te ac he rs sp en t o n co m m un ic at in g w it h pa re nt s/ gu ar di an s o f s tu de nt s i n th ei r c la ss in c om pa ri so n w it h be fo re th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s re p o rt in g an in cr ea se in t h e fr eq u en cy o f u se o f t h e fo llo w in g m ea n s o f c o m m u n ic at io n w it h p ar en ts /g u ar d ia n s T he s ch oo l’s e m ai l sy st em T h e fe at u re s w it h in t h e sc h o o l’s L ea rn in g M an ag em en t Sy st em / sc h o o l i n tr an et So ci al m ed ia s it es (o u ts id e o f t h e sc h o o l’s le ar n in g m an ag em en t sy st em ) P os ta l s er vi ce SM S o r m es sa gi n g (o u ts id e o f t h e sc h o o l’s le ar n in g m an ag em en t sy st em ) In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 7 5 (3 .8 ) k 8 5 (5 .7 ) 8 6 (2 .8 ) 4 2 (7 .5 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 7 7 (2 .2 ) 5 9 (2 .2 ) 7 9 (1 .2 ) 7 6 (1 .6 ) 3 3 (1 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 9 1 (0 .8 ) 8 0 (1 .3 ) 5 4 (1 .8 ) 3 1 (1 .5 ) 1 3 (1 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 7 8 (2 .1 ) 7 2 (1 .9 ) 5 9 (1 .9 ) 5 8 (2 .1 ) 2 6 (1 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 6 1 (2 .0 ) 7 0 (1 .7 ) 8 3 (1 .5 ) 8 1 (1 .7 ) 5 7 (1 .8 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 6 5 6 2 9 1 7 0 4 7 D en m ar kg ,i 6 3 2 5 4 3 3 1 6 1 E th io p ia i 6 1 5 5 5 4 6 3 6 1 4 8 K en ya i e e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 4 1 n 5 8 n 6 9 n 3 0 n 4 n95 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g Lo w p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 3. 6: T he in cr ea se in ti m e te ac he rs sp en t o n co m m un ic at in g w it h pa re nt s/ gu ar di an s o f s tu de nt s i n th ei r c la ss in c om pa ri so n w it h be fo re th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s re p o rt in g an in cr ea se in t h e fr eq u en cy o f u se o f t h e fo llo w in g m ea n s o f c o m m u n ic at io n w it h p ar en ts /g u ar d ia n s V id eo c al ls Te le p h o n e ca lls F ac e- to -f ac e m ee ti ng s at s ch oo l F ac e- to -f ac e m ee ti n gs o u ts id e o f t h e sc h o o l In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 8 1 (5 .2 ) 8 4 (5 .6 ) 4 2 (8 .4 ) 4 6 (6 .8 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n 1 (0 .3 ) 6 7 (2 .4 ) 8 6 (1 .2 ) 8 (1 .0 ) 8 (1 .3 ) Sl ov en ia 2 (0 .5 ) 6 2 (1 .9 ) 6 7 (1 .8 ) 4 (0 .6 ) 4 (0 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 7 1 (1 .2 ) 6 3 (1 .7 ) 1 1 (0 .8 ) 9 (0 .7 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 7 5 (1 .6 ) 8 8 (1 .3 ) 1 0 (1 .0 ) 9 (0 .9 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 5 3 8 3 4 1 3 1 D en m ar k 6 6 0 4 8 1 1 E th io p ia 6 1 5 2 6 6 5 0 4 1 K en ya e e e e e U ru gu ay 1 3 4 n 4 3 n 8 n 3 n96 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 3. 7: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s r ec ei vi ng th ei r t ea ch er s’ fe ed ba ck to so m e or m os t o r a ll, o r a lm os t a ll of th ei r s ch oo lw or k (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) N ev er (2 ) F or so m e of m y sc ho ol w or k (3 ) F or m os t o f m y sc ho ol w or k an d (4 ) F or a ll or a lm os t a ll of m y sc ho ol w or k P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y Sp o ke n fe ed b ac k gi ve n t o t h em in d iv id u al ly Sp o ke n fe ed b ac k gi ve n t o sm al l g ro u p s Sp o ke n fe ed b ac k gi ve n to t h e w h o le c la ss O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts r ep o rt in g re ce iv in g te ac h er s’ fe ed b ac k to s o m e o r m o st , o r al l o r al m o st a ll o f t h ei r sc h o o lw o rk u si n g th e fo llo w in g m et h o d s R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 6 2 (1 .1 ) 5 0 (1 .4 ) 6 1 (1 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g a 6 8 (1 .3 ) 7 2 (1 .0 ) 8 3 (1 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 7 8 (0 .9 ) 7 7 (1 .0 ) 9 0 (0 .8 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 8 1 (1 .0 ) 8 2 (1 .5 ) 8 4 (0 .9 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 2 1 2 1 2 4 D en m ar k a 7 5 6 8 6 5 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 4 3 4 4 4 5 K en ya h 2 1 n 3 0 3 2 3 297 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 3. 7: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s r ec ei vi ng th ei r t ea ch er s’ fe ed ba ck to so m e or m os t, or a ll or a lm os t a ll of th ei r s ch oo lw or k us in g th e fo llo w in g m et ho ds (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) N ev er (2 ) F or so m e of m y sc ho ol w or k (3 ) F or m os t o f m y sc ho ol w or k an d (4 ) F or a ll or a lm os t a ll of m y sc ho ol w or k P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y Sc o re s/ gr ad es W ri tt en fe ed b ac k o n t h ei r w o rk W ri tt en o r sp o ke n fe ed b ac k re co rd ed t h ro u gh t h e sc h o o l- b as ed le ar n in g m an ag em en t ap p s O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts r ep o rt in g re ce iv in g te ac h er s’ fe ed b ac k to s o m e o r m o st , o r al l o r al m o st a ll o f t h ei r sc h o o lw o rk u si n g th e fo llo w in g m et h o d s R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 9 1 (0 .8 ) 8 3 (0 .9 ) 5 6 (1 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g a 9 0 (0 .9 ) 9 3 (0 .7 ) 7 9 (1 .0 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 9 2 (0 .7 ) 8 7 (0 .8 ) 7 7 (1 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 9 4 (0 .6 ) 9 0 (0 .7 ) k D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 2 8 3 1 1 3 D en m ar k a 8 4 9 4 8 0 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 5 4 4 6 k K en ya h 2 1 n 4 3 3 7 2 498 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION quarter to a half reported an increase in providing verbal feedback to students during lessons, either individually or to small groups, including for observed performance on practical tasks. An exception was in Denmark, where a smaller percentage (20% or less) of teacher respondents reported increases in their provision of verbal feedback to students. More than half of the teachers who engaged in remote teaching in India, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan reported an increase in their provision of feedback via email, other messaging tools, or the schools’ learning management system. This finding was also true for teacher respondents in Uruguay. Teachers’ workload associated with providing student feedback–which includes the frequency, the amount, and the time invested in providing feedback during the COVID-19 disruption–is presented in the second part of Table 4.3.8. Fewer than half of teachers in India as well as teacher respondents in Burkina Faso and Ethiopia reported an increase in their workload overall. In contrast, the majority of the teachers from the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan, and teacher respondents in Uruguay, reported increases. In Denmark, the percentage of teacher respondents reporting an increase in their workload associated with providing feedback tended to be the lowest among the participating countries. Assessment A further challenge to teachers during the COVID-19 disruption was the assessment of student learning. Given that most classrooms transitioned to remote learning, paper-based assessments may have become more difficult to administer and/or supervise. Therefore, teachers might have had to adjust the ways in which they assessed student learning. To have a better understanding of how student assessments were impacted by the pandemic, teachers were asked whether there were any changes related to the assessments they used and how the assessments they adopted during the disruption performed in terms of adequately measuring student learning progress. Teachers reported their experiences using four response categories (“strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree”). Table 4.3.9 reports the share of teachers that agreed or strongly agreed with each statement. In the majority of countries, nearly half or, in some cases, more than half of teachers or teacher respondents who remained active during the COVID-19 disruption, reported that they continued using the same types of assessments and that their students completed assessment tasks with the same regularity. An exception was Slovenia, where only 17% of teachers used the same types of assessments and 23% reported that students completed assessment tasks with the same regularity as before the disruption. The United Arab Emirates and Burkina Faso were also slight exceptions, with relatively lower percentages of teachers or teacher respondents, respectively, agreeing that they used the same assessments or gave the assessments with the same regularity, respectively. Across all countries that participated in the study, well over 60% of teachers or teacher respondents reported that they had to adapt these assessments to fit the new mode of delivery. When asked about the performance of the assessments used during the disruption, in most countries, nearly half or, in some cases, more than half of teachers or teacher respondents reported that the assessments performed well. Specifically, they agreed that the assessments adopted during the disruption allowed them to appropriately monitor student learning and that the results from these assessments were an accurate reflection of progression in their students’ learning over the COVID-19 disruption. Two slight exceptions to this pattern were Slovenia and Denmark, where less than 30% of teachers (or teacher respondents, in Denmark) agreed with the latter statement. Despite many teachers agreeing that student assessments performed well, a large portion of teachers and teacher respondents from the countries claimed that the disruption made the assessment of students with special needs and practical aspects of student work (e.g., science experiments, art projects, music performances) more difficult. Further, Burkina Faso (47%) and Denmark (42%) were the only countries where less than half of teacher respondents reported having adequate time to conduct assessments of their students.99 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 3. 8: T ea ch er s r ep or ti ng a n in cr ea se in p ro vi di ng fe ed ba ck to st ud en ts in th ei r c la ss in c om pa ri so n w it h be fo re th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s re p o rt in g an in cr ea se in t h e fo llo w in g as p ec ts o f f ee d b ac k In di vi du al is ed v er ba l fe ed ba ck o n ta sk s du ri ng le ss on s V er b al fe ed b ac k to sm al l g ro u p s d u ri n g le ss o n s Fe ed b ac k d el iv er ed th ro u gh s tu d en ts ’ ac co u n ts o n t h e sc h o o l Le ar n in g M an ag em en t Sy st em Fe ed ba ck o n ob se rv ed pe rf or m an ce o n pr ac ti ca l ta sk s (e .g . s ci en ce ex pe ri m en ts , a rt p ro je ct s, m us ic p er fo rm an ce s) Fe ed b ac k d el iv er ed vi a st u d en ts ’ s ch o o l em ai ls o r m es sa gi n g In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 4 8 (8 .6 ) 4 8 (8 .6 ) 5 2 (7 .7 ) k 3 8 (8 .4 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 2 6 (1 .3 ) 2 8 (1 .5 ) 6 4 (1 .6 ) 5 4 (2 .1 ) 3 8 (1 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 2 4 (1 .8 ) 2 2 (2 .3 ) 7 6 (1 .8 ) 6 9 (1 .9 ) 4 6 (1 .7 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 6 0 (2 .2 ) 5 1 (1 .4 ) 6 9 (1 .2 ) 8 0 (1 .1 ) 4 9 (1 .8 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 5 6 (2 .4 ) 4 7 (2 .4 ) 5 8 (1 .5 ) 6 9 (1 .8 ) 4 4 (1 .5 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 4 1 3 9 3 4 3 8 2 0 D en m ar kg ,i 6 1 7 2 0 3 1 4 6 1 2 E th io p ia i 6 1 4 7 4 2 3 5 k 3 1 K en ya i e e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 3 6 2 8 8 0 8 8 k100 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g Lo w p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . Ta bl e 4. 3. 8: T ea ch er s r ep or ti ng a n in cr ea se in p ro vi di ng fe ed ba ck to st ud en ts in th ei r c la ss in c om pa ri so n w it h be fo re th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s re p o rt in g an in cr ea se in t h e fo llo w in g as p ec ts o f f ee d b ac k T h e fr eq u en cy w it h w h ic h I ga ve fe ed b ac k to s tu d en ts T h e am o u n t o f f ee d b ac k I p ro vi d ed t o s tu d en ts T he ti m e be tw ee n st ud en ts su bm it ti ng w or k an d m y fe ed ba ck to s tu de nt s on th ei r w or k T h e ti m e it t o o k m e to e xp la in m y fe ed b ac k to s tu d en ts In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 4 8 (7 .1 ) 5 0 (8 .3 ) 4 3 (7 .0 ) 4 7 (8 .3 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n 1 (0 .3 ) 6 2 (2 .1 ) 6 6 (1 .8 ) 6 3 (1 .8 ) 6 6 (2 .0 ) Sl ov en ia 2 (0 .5 ) 6 8 (1 .6 ) 6 9 (1 .4 ) 5 1 (1 .7 ) 7 3 (1 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 5 6 (1 .7 ) 6 2 (1 .8 ) 5 1 (1 .2 ) 5 6 (1 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 6 9 (1 .6 ) 7 2 (1 .8 ) 6 8 (1 .7 ) 7 5 (1 .5 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 3 9 3 6 4 4 4 1 D en m ar k 6 4 0 3 5 2 7 4 5 E th io p ia 6 1 4 2 4 1 4 1 4 3 K en ya e e e e e U ru gu ay 1 7 0 7 4 6 0 7 7101 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 3. 9: T ea ch er s a gr ee in g or st ro ng ly a gr ee in g w it h st at em en ts o n th e as se ss m en t o f s tu de nt le ar ni ng in th ei r c la ss d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s ag re ei n g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts I u se d t h e sa m e ty p es o f as se ss m en t o f s tu d en ts ’ le ar n in g th at I ty p ic al ly u se d b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n T h e as se ss m en ts I u se d d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n a llo w ed m e to ap p ro p ri at el y m o n it o r st u d en t le ar n in g A ss es si ng s tu de nt s w it h sp ec ia l n ee ds w as m or e di ffi cu lt th an b ef or e A ss es si n g th e p ra ct ic al as p ec ts o f s tu d en t w o rk (e .g . s ci en ce e xp er im en ts , a rt pr oj ec ts , m us ic p er fo rm an ce s) w as e sp ec ia lly d if fi cu lt In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 5 5 (7 .0 ) 5 7 (8 .3 ) 8 5 (4 .0 ) 7 0 (6 .8 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 6 6 (1 .3 ) 7 0 (1 .6 ) 6 3 (1 .6 ) 8 0 (1 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 1 7 (1 .5 ) 5 8 (1 .6 ) 8 3 (1 .2 ) 7 5 (1 .7 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 3 4 (1 .3 ) 7 9 (1 .1 ) 6 6 (1 .4 ) 7 6 (1 .7 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 6 6 (1 .5 ) 7 1 (1 .4 ) 7 5 (1 .2 ) 7 3 (1 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 5 1 4 7 7 8 7 1 D en m ar kg ,i 6 4 6 6 5 7 6 8 7 E th io p ia i 6 1 4 7 5 2 6 7 5 8 K en ya i e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 k k k k102 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 3. 9: T ea ch er s a gr ee in g or st ro ng ly a gr ee in g w it h st at em en ts o n th e as se ss m en t o f s tu de nt le ar ni ng in th ei r c la ss d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s ag re ei n g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts I h ad a d eq u at e ti m e to co n d u ct a ss es sm en ts o f m y st u d en ts St u d en ts c o m p le te d as se ss m en t ta sk s w it h t h e sa m e re gu la ri ty a s b ef o re th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n I a da pt ed a ss es sm en ts us ed b ef or e th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on to s ui t t he c ha ng ed de liv er y m od e as r eq ui re d St u d en ts ’ o ve ra ll re su lt s fr o m a ss es sm en ts a re a n ac cu ra te r efl ec ti o n o f p ro gr es si o n in t h ei r le ar n in g ov er t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n p er io d In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 7 7 (4 .9 ) 4 0 (8 .1 ) 7 9 (6 .1 ) 6 4 (8 .9 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 5 3 (1 .9 ) 6 1 (1 .8 ) 8 2 (1 .0 ) 4 8 (2 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 5 3 (1 .6 ) 2 3 (1 .6 ) 9 1 (0 .7 ) 2 8 (1 .3 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 7 9 (1 .6 ) 5 8 (1 .5 ) 9 1 (0 .9 ) 6 0 (1 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 8 9 (0 .8 ) 7 3 (1 .6 ) 8 3 (1 .2 ) 7 4 (1 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 4 7 2 9 7 1 6 4 D en m ar kg ,i 6 4 2 5 3 8 7 2 9 E th io p ia i 6 1 6 2 4 5 6 5 5 2 K en ya i e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 k k k k103 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Principals were asked about their expectations regarding assessment of student learning during the COVID-19 disruption. Specifically, they were asked whether the following forms of assessments were expected in their schools: informal feedback to students about their learning progress, formative and diagnostic assessments, summative assessments, national testing, evaluation of submitted samples of student work, performance, and practical assessments. Principals reported their expectations using three response categories (“expected and required,” “expected but not required,” and “not expected”). The first part of Table 4.3.10 reports the percentages of principals who answered that an assessment was at least expected. In most countries, the majority of principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) in schools that continued to offer teaching and learning provisions during the COVID-19 disruption, expected each of the above-mentioned forms of assessments to take place in their schools during COVID-19 disruption. The Russian Federation (38%), Rwanda (40%), Slovenia (36%), Uruguay (25%), and Denmark (33%), were exceptions, where fewer principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) stated that there were expectations for national testing to take place in their schools. Principals were also asked about expectations regarding the administration and recording of student assessments (see the second part of Table 4.3.10). The majority of principals in all countries reported that there were expectations for keeping records of student learning progress. This was especially true in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan, where over 90% of principals agreed that this was the case. Further, in several countries, more than half of principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) stated that tests were expected to be conducted online during the COVID-19 disruption. However, this was not the case in Ethiopia (25%), Kenya (37%), and Burkina Faso (34%). In these countries, it was more common for principals of schools that continued operating during the disruption to set expectations for paper-based assessments. While most countries favored one type of assessment (i.e., online vs paper-based), in India and the Russian Federation, similar percentages of principals reported that there were expectations for both types of assessments. Principals were also asked whether their schools implemented some policy changes related to student assessments and reporting. Specifically, they were asked whether they shifted the focus from summative to formative assessments, changed from grading students to more informal feedback, changed requirements to participate in national testing, or reduced the scope of reporting requirements. Principals could choose one of three response categories (“to a large extent,” “to some extent,” or “not at all”). Table 4.3.11 reports the share of principals who reported that changes had been made either “to a large extent” or “to some extent.” For almost all countries, in schools that continued to offer teaching and learning services during the COVID-19 disruption, over half or about half of principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) reported that their schools shifted the focus from summative to formative assessments and changed from grading students to providing more informal feedback. Burkina Faso was an exception to this pattern, where well below half of principals noted these shifts. In all countries except Kenya (48%), 50% or more principals reported that their schools reduced the scope of reporting requirements. Also, most principals reported that their schools changed the requirements for participating in national testing programmes, except in Kenya (45%) and Uruguay (23%). References Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2020). Preparing for life in a digital world: IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 International Report. Springer Nature. https:// link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-38781-5 World Bank. (2020). How countries are using edtech (including online learning, radio, television, texting) to support access to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (Online brief). The World Bank. Retrieved September 23, 2021 from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/edutech/brief/how- countries-are-using-edtech-to-support-remote-learning-during-the-covid-19-pandemic104 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 3. 10 : P ri nc ip al s’ e xp ec ta ti on s o f t he a ss es sm en t o f s tu de nt le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) E xp ec te d an d re qu ir ed (2 ) E xp ec te d bu t n ot re qu ir ed a nd (3 ) N ot e xp ec te d P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f p ri n ci p al s ex p ec ti n g te ac h er s to a ss es s st u d en t le ar n in g in t h e fo llo w in g w ay s In fo rm al fe ed ba ck to st ud en ts a bo ut th ei r le ar ni ng p ro gr es s Fo rm at iv e an d d ia gn o st ic a ss es sm en t ap p ro ac h es (d u ri n g le ar n in g) N at io n al (i .e ., p ro vi n ci al o r re gi o n al ) t es ti n g E va lu at io n of s ub m it te d sa m pl es o f s tu de nt w or k Su m m at iv e as se ss m en ts (a t th e en d o f t o p ic s o r p er io d s o f l ea rn in g) B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 8 7 (3 .5 ) 7 6 (6 .2 ) 8 2 (5 .9 ) 6 6 (6 .4 ) 7 5 (6 .5 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 9 5 (2 .5 ) 9 2 (3 .4 ) 8 6 (6 .1 ) 6 5 (9 .3 ) 8 5 (5 .7 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 5 7 (7 .9 ) 5 7 (8 .2 ) 5 5 (7 .9 ) 5 1 (7 .8 ) 5 8 (7 .9 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 9 3 (3 .1 ) 1 0 0 (0 .3 ) 9 8 (1 .8 ) 3 8 (5 .5 ) 9 9 (0 .9 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 7 9 (6 .5 ) 7 6 (6 .7 ) 7 4 (7 .1 ) 4 0 (8 .5 ) 6 7 (7 .4 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 9 9 (0 .5 ) k 5 8 (5 .1 ) 3 6 (5 .7 ) 6 6 (4 .7 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 9 9 (0 .4 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) 7 8 (4 .7 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 8 3 (3 .1 ) 9 5 (4 .1 ) 9 3 (4 .1 ) 2 5 (5 .5 ) 9 5 (4 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 6 5 (5 .5 ) 6 3 (5 .6 ) 7 4 (4 .1 ) 4 9 (5 .0 ) 8 6 (3 .6 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 9 2 n 6 5 n 8 0 n 3 3 n 9 8 n105 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 3. 10 : P ri nc ip al s’ e xp ec ta ti on s o f t he a ss es sm en t o f s tu de nt le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) E xp ec te d an d re qu ir ed (2 ) E xp ec te d bu t n ot re qu ir ed a nd (3 ) N ot e xp ec te d P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f p ri n ci p al s ex p ec ti n g te ac h er s to a ss es s st u d en t le ar n in g in t h e fo llo w in g w ay s C o n d u ct t es ts o n lin e C o n d u ct t es ts w it h s tu d en ts re sp o n d in g o n p ap er P er fo rm an ce a nd p ra ct ic al as se ss m en ts K ee p r ec o rd s o f s tu d en t le ar n in g p ro gr es s B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 2 5 (5 .0 ) 7 8 (5 .9 ) 7 5 (5 .5 ) 6 8 (5 .9 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 8 2 (7 .3 ) 7 7 (7 .7 ) 7 9 (7 .4 ) 8 0 (1 0 .4 ) K en yg ,j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 3 7 (9 .9 ) 5 5 (7 .9 ) 5 2 (8 .1 ) 5 8 (8 .4 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 8 6 (3 .6 ) 9 0 (3 .3 ) 9 4 (3 .2 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 6 5 (8 .0 ) 4 7 (8 .5 ) 5 3 (8 .5 ) 7 2 (7 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 6 5 (4 .4 ) 2 7 (5 .4 ) 8 2 (4 .0 ) 9 8 (1 .0 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 9 7 (1 .6 ) 6 3 (4 .0 ) 9 5 (1 .7 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 8 2 (5 .6 ) 6 1 (7 .0 ) 9 3 (2 .2 ) 9 9 (0 .8 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 9 2 (2 .5 ) 3 5 (4 .4 ) 7 6 (4 .4 ) 9 2 (2 .8 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 6 7 n 1 8 n 3 9 n 8 0 n106 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. c T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s ch oo ls o ff er ed so m e te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . d N um be r o f s ch oo ls to o sm al l t o re po rt p er ce nt ag es . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 3. 11 : P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls im pl em en ti ng p ol ic y ch an ge s r el at ed to a ss es sm en t a nd re po rt in g im pl em en ti ng th e ch an ge s t o a la rg e or to so m e ex te nt R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) T o a la rg e ex te nt (2 ) T o so m e ex te nt a nd (3 ) N ot a t a ll P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls n o t o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e sc h o o ls o ff er in g te ac h in g an d le ar n in g p ro vi si o n s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s ch o o ls im p le m en ti n g th e fo llo w in g p o lic y ch an ge s re la te d t o a ss es sm en t an d r ep o rt in g im p le m en ti n g th e ch an ge s to a la rg e o r to s o m e ex te n t Sh if ti n g th e fo cu s fr o m su m m at iv e to fo rm at iv e as se ss m en ts C h an gi n g fr o m g ra d in g st u d en ts t o p ro vi d in g m o re in fo rm al fe ed b ac k C ha ng in g re qu ir em en ts to pa rt ic ip at e in n at io na l te st in g pr og ra m m es R ed u ci n g th e sc o p e o f re p o rt in g re q u ir em en ts B u rk in a F as o 9 2 (2 .5 ) d d d d E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .3 ) 8 9 (3 .0 ) 8 0 (4 .8 ) 6 6 (5 .6 ) 8 0 (5 .0 ) In d ia 2 8 (8 .0 ) 8 0 (6 .6 ) 8 6 (5 .7 ) k 7 9 (7 .3 ) K en ya g, j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 4 8 (8 .0 ) 5 0 (8 .0 ) 4 5 (8 .2 ) 4 8 (7 .5 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j c 9 5 (0 .9 ) 6 7 (5 .8 ) 8 0 (4 .2 ) 5 3 (5 .2 ) R w an d a 7 0 (3 .8 ) 6 7 (7 .6 ) 7 9 (6 .6 ) 5 4 (8 .4 ) 6 0 (7 .5 ) Sl ov en ia g, j c 9 4 (1 .8 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) k k U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es c 8 8 (2 .9 ) 8 4 (3 .7 ) 5 5 (3 .7 ) 7 5 (3 .4 ) U ru gu ay g, j c 9 8 (1 .3 ) 9 0 (3 .9 ) 2 3 (5 .0 ) 6 2 (6 .3 ) U zb ek is ta n j c 9 1 (2 .7 ) 8 0 (4 .0 ) 7 3 (4 .8 ) 8 9 (3 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j c 5 3 n 5 5 n 5 7 n 6 5 n107 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION 4.4 Help and support for teaching and learning Sabine Meinck, Mojca Rožman, Minge Chen Section highlights Receiving and providing help and support for teaching and learning was assumed by many people to be a critical coping strategy in light of the educational disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This section describes the support mechanisms that were implemented in the participating educational systems during the reference period. It shows how students, parents or guardians, teachers, and schools were supported and offered support. Students received support from various persons on various topics. • Most students from most of the participating countries received help from parents or guardians and their teachers with various topics related to learning. • A quarter to up to half of the students in all participating countries reported they had, at least sometimes, no one at all available who could help them with their schoolwork. • Most students from most countries reported to have been in good contact with their teachers, which left a significant number of students lacking these fundamental preconditions of learning. Many teachers have acknowledged their role as important supporters of their students and families. • Coinciding with students’ reports, a majority of teachers in most of the countries said they provided support on multiple topics regarding learning and beyond. • The vast majority of teachers in all the participating countries agreed that it was difficult to provide lower achieving and vulnerable students with the support they required. • Significantly less than half of the teachers across countries undertook professional development before the pandemic on topics with increased importance during school closures. Principals provided and received tailored support. • A majority of schools increased the use of tools and activities around remote schooling, with the exception of those in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Rwanda. • Countries varied largely regarding their provision of support services for students. • A vast majority of schools in most countries participating in REDS provided support to parents or guardians on various topics related to organizing and implementing learning activities. • Most principals felt supported by their educational authorities.108 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic emerged suddenly, and the implemented measures severely disrupted peoples’ lives. In such situations of crisis, it is natural for human beings to seek and provide help and support to each other. REDS investigated how this applied to the various stakeholders within the education system. This section reports on students that received help, and what kind and intensity of support was provided to them. It further investigates how principals supported teachers at their school, and how both principals and teachers supported students and their families during the reference period, but also examines who supported schools. In reference to the REDS research questions, this section addresses the question: How the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning were mitigated by measures of help and support. Help and support for students Many students worldwide could not go to school for significant periods of time during the COVID-19 pandemic. As shown in previous sections of the report, learning activities therefore had to be relocated to another place, mostly the homes of the students. Lacking direct contact and supervision from their teachers, other people became important sources of support when students needed help with issues surrounding learning, be it access to study materials, use of digital devices, or structuring their school day. REDS asked students which persons were available to help them with their schoolwork at home, and with what frequency (“never,” “sometimes,” or “often or always”). Table 4.4.1 presents the accumulated percentages of students that responded that specific persons were at least sometimes available and could help, out of those students engaging in schoolwork during the reference period as indicated in the column labelled “Percentages of students doing no schoolwork at all during the COVID-19 disruption”. As shown in the table, parents or guardians of the vast majority of students in most of the countries were at least sometimes available and could help. However, from the few participating students in Burkina Faso who actually engaged in some schoolwork during the reference period, only half said their parents could help. Further, in all participating countries, frequently, older siblings and other people were available too, according to respondents’ answers. Of note, a significant number of students reported they had, at least sometimes, no one at all available who could help them with their schoolwork. This applied to a quarter, up to half of the students in all participating countries. Overall, students from Uzbekistan reported the highest levels of support for remote schooling from different groups of people. Students who engaged in learning during the disruption were further asked how much help they received for specific topics. The response options were “none,” “a small amount,” “a moderate amount,” or “a lot” of help. Table 4.4.2 is divided into two parts and presents the percentages of students who reported not receiving help at all with specific topics. About one fifth of the students or even more reported a lack of help for many of the topics REDS asked about. This is true for, receiving help to find or access their schoolwork on computer, help to use the school computer system, help to do research, and teaching of additional skills. One third or more of the students in all countries received no help at all with planning their schoolwork, except for Uzbekistan, where only 16% supported this statement. Reassuringly, relatively few students indicated they got no help with issues that may have occurred more frequently. Only around 10% of the students in most of the participating countries received no guidance with their schoolwork when needed. However, between 20% and 30% of student respondents in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya reported this. Similarly, less than a third of students in most countries received no study advice or tips (exception: Danish respondents–44%) or were not encouraged to stay on task. It should be noted some findings can mean different things; students may not have needed help (and therefore not received it), and potential sources of support may have been available but not been able to help for lack of knowledge or other reasons. For example, students in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya used online learning modes rarely, so only few would have needed help with it.109 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g Lo w p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 1: P er so ns h el pi ng st ud en ts w it h th ei r s ch oo lw or k at h om e so m et im es o r o ft en , o r a lw ay s R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) N ev er (2 ) S om et im es (3 ) O ft en o r a lw ay s P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts r ep o rt in g th e fo llo w in g p er so n s w er e so m et im es o r o ft en , o r al w ay s av ai la b le a n d c o u ld h el p T h ei r p ar en t( s) o r gu ar d ia n (s ) O ld er s ib lin gs O th er p eo pl e N o o n e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 8 7 (0 .7 ) 4 3 (1 .1 ) 4 9 (1 .2 ) 3 2 (1 .2 ) Sl ov en ia g a 9 0 (0 .6 ) 5 1 (1 .3 ) 5 3 (1 .2 ) 3 4 (1 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 8 7 (0 .8 ) 5 3 (1 .6 ) 5 4 (1 .2 ) 4 0 (1 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 9 2 (0 .7 ) 8 1 (1 .1 ) 7 9 (1 .1 ) 3 2 (1 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 5 3 7 7 6 3 2 4 D en m ar k a 8 7 4 8 2 8 5 1 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 7 4 7 0 4 7 3 7 K en ya h 2 1 n 8 3 7 8 5 1 4 1110 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 2: S tu de nt s r ec ei vi ng n o he lp a t a ll w it h th ei r s ch oo lw or k at h om e (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) N on e (2 ) A sm al l a m ou nt (3 ) A m od er at e am ou nt a nd (4 ) A lo t P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts r ec ei vi n g n o h el p a t al l w it h t h e fo llo w in g to p ic s F in d o r ac ce ss t h ei r sc h o o lw o rk o n c o m p u te r H el p t o u se t h e sc h o o l co m p u te r sy st em s E xp la na ti on s of th ei r sc ho ol w or k w he n ne ed ed H el p t o d o r es ea rc h R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 2 8 (1 .1 ) 3 8 (1 .1 ) 1 2 (0 .8 ) 2 2 (0 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g a 3 1 (1 .2 ) 3 8 (1 .3 ) 1 3 (0 .7 ) 2 6 (0 .9 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 2 2 (0 .9 ) 2 4 (0 .8 ) 1 0 (0 .6 ) 2 2 (0 .8 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 2 7 (1 .6 ) 2 3 (1 .4 ) 8 (0 .7 ) 2 0 (1 .2 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 8 2 8 5 2 1 3 6 D en m ar k a 3 6 4 9 9 2 9 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 7 4 7 3 2 7 4 2 K en ya h 2 1 n 7 9 8 5 2 3 3 9111 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 2: S tu de nt s r ec ei vi ng n o he lp a t a ll w it h th ei r s ch oo lw or k at h om e (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) N on e (2 ) A sm al l a m ou nt (3 ) A m od er at e am ou nt a nd (4 ) A lo t P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts r ec ei vi n g n o h el p a t al l w it h t h e fo llo w in g to p ic s H el p t o p la n t h ei r sc h o o lw o rk fo r th e d ay St u d y ad vi ce o r ti p s E nc ou ra ge m en t t o st ay on ta sk Te ac h in g o f ad d it io n al s ki lls R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 4 1 (1 .1 ) 1 5 (0 .8 ) 2 7 (0 .9 ) 3 0 (1 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g a 4 4 (1 .0 ) 2 9 (0 .9 ) 2 6 (0 .9 ) 3 8 (1 .0 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 3 2 (0 .9 ) 1 4 (0 .7 ) 1 5 (0 .9 ) 2 4 (1 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 1 6 (0 .9 ) 8 (0 .5 ) 1 0 (0 .7 ) 2 1 (0 .9 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 4 3 3 3 1 1 5 9 D en m ar k a 5 9 4 4 3 1 4 7 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 3 2 1 9 3 1 5 1 K en ya h 2 1 n 4 8 2 8 3 4 3 0112 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Teachers were supposed to remain the main source of support for student learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, teachers were most often, and for a significant amount of time, in a situation where they could not be in physical contact with their students. They frequently had to find ways to overcome this barrier as shown in previous sections of this report. REDS asked students, in their perspective, how successful teachers had been at helping and supporting them during the reference period. Table 4.4.3 presents the percentages of students who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with various statements related with teachers’ help and support, out of those students who engaged in schoolwork during the reference period (the remaining response options were “disagree” and “strongly disagree”). A precondition for helping students is to establish contact with them. A vast majority of students in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan as well as student respondents from Denmark agreed that their teachers made it clear how to best contact them and were available for help when needed (Table 4.4.3, part 1). About as many students in these countries reported that their teachers gave feedback they could understand. Further, two thirds or more students in those countries agreed that their teachers made a special effort to keep in contact with them. In contrast, less than a third of the student respondents engaging in schoolwork supported those statements in Burkina Faso, and a bit more than a third in Kenya, while half of the respondents in Ethiopia agreed. These results show that most students felt well-supported, at least regarding the aspects investigated in REDS, by their teachers. However, the results also provide evidence that some students lacked this support. This applied to only a few in some of the countries, but a significant number of students in others. For example, half of the respondents in Ethiopia did not know how to contact their teachers, and as many did not receive understandable feedback. It is possible that those students felt and were left behind. A positive relationship between teachers and their students may favorably impact their academic, behavioural, and socioemotional skills (Davis, 2003). It can be assumed this applies also or particularly in times of crisis. REDS asked students about their relationships with their teachers (Table 4.4.3, part 2). Reassuringly, most students in all participating countries agreed that they had a good relationship with their teachers during the reference period. However, in Burkina Faso and Kenya, half or even more than half of the respondents did not support this statement. Further, more than two thirds of the students in most countries said their teachers showed interest in their learning and encouraged them to learn, again with slightly lower support for these statements in Burkina Faso and Kenya. Finally, largely varying percentages of students reported their teachers adapted their schoolwork to meet their individual needs, ranging from as few as 28% of respondents in Burkina Faso up to 79% in Uzbekistan. Teachers’ perspectives on help and support for students This section presents teachers’ views on several aspects of help and support during the COVID-19 disruption. Note that all teachers’ results presented in this section take into account exclusively teachers who stated to have been teaching their class remotely during the COVID-19 disruption. This is indicated in the respective column in Tables 4.4.4 to 4.4.6. Complementing the statements of students in the previous section, teachers have been asked whether and to what extent (“to a large extent,” “to some extent,” “to a small extent,” or “not at all”) they provided various support or information to students and their families. The percentages of teachers providing support at least to some extent for the specific topics are presented in Table 4.4.4. As is evident from the table, many teachers have acknowledged and engaged in their role as important sources of support for their students and families with regard to learning during the reference period. More than half of teachers in all countries reported to have provided information on study skills and strategies, ranging from 59% of active teachers in Denmark to 91% in the United Arab Emirates. More than two thirds of the teachers in all countries reported providing information on how to access to learning material. Fewer teachers supported students with the organization of school days, ranging from 40% of teachers in Uzbekistan to 81% in the United Arab Emirates.113 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 3: S tu de nt s r ec ei vi ng su pp or t f ro m th ei r t ea ch er s ( pa rt 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts a gr ee in g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts M y te ac h er s w er e av ai la b le w h en I n ee d ed t h ei r h el p M y te ac h er s m ad e it c le ar h o w t o b es t co n ta ct t h em M y te ac he rs g av e m e fe ed ba ck th at I co ul d un de rs ta nd M y te ac h er s m ad e a sp ec ia l e ff o rt t o k ee p in co n ta ct w it h m e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 8 2 (1 .0 ) 8 6 (0 .7 ) 8 3 (0 .8 ) 6 3 (1 .2 ) Sl ov en ia g a 8 9 (0 .7 ) 8 6 (0 .8 ) 8 3 (1 .0 ) 7 0 (1 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 9 1 (0 .7 ) 8 8 (0 .8 ) 8 9 (0 .7 ) 7 7 (1 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 9 4 (0 .6 ) 9 1 (0 .7 ) 8 8 (0 .8 ) 8 8 (1 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 2 9 3 1 3 3 2 6 D en m ar k a 8 8 8 6 8 4 6 3 n E th io p ia h 4 4 n 5 5 5 6 5 4 5 1 K en ya h 2 1 n 3 7 3 9 4 1 3 5114 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he si s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 3: S tu de nt s r ec ei vi ng su pp or t f ro m th ei r t ea ch er s ( pa rt 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts a gr ee in g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts M y te ac h er s sh o w ed in te re st in m y le ar n in g I h ad a g o o d r el at io n sh ip w it h m y te ac h er s M y te ac he rs e nc ou ra ge d m e to le ar n M y te ac h er s ad ap te d m y sc h o o lw o rk t o m ee t m y in d iv id u al n ee d s R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 6 8 (1 .1 ) 8 6 (0 .9 ) 6 5 (1 .3 ) 4 6 (1 .2 ) Sl ov en ia g a 7 5 (1 .0 ) 8 7 (0 .8 ) 6 7 (1 .1 ) 5 0 (1 .3 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 8 9 (0 .7 ) 9 0 (0 .7 ) 9 0 (0 .6 ) 7 3 (1 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 9 2 (0 .6 ) 9 3 (0 .7 ) 9 2 (0 .7 ) 7 9 (1 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 4 0 4 5 7 3 2 8 D en m ar k a 7 5 n 8 1 5 2 n 4 2 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 6 7 6 8 7 1 5 7 K en ya h 2 1 n 4 8 5 0 6 2 3 5115 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION While these results are encouraging, it remains concerning that there were still teachers who provided very little support or none at all. Students of those teachers may have missed support needed during the pandemic. Finally, relatively few teachers in most countries, at least to some extent, provided advice on how to access financial support (last column of Table 4.4.4). This is not too much of a surprise, as this topic is not directly related to teaching and learning, which teachers likely see as their main responsibility. However, a significant portion of teachers adopted a broader role and mission, at least during the reference period. Remarkably, two thirds of teachers in India provided such advice, half of the teachers in Ethiopia and Uzbekistan, and about a third from the Russian Federation, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates. In comparison, almost no teacher respondents from Denmark reported giving advice on this topic, which may be due to the strong state-run social safety system in place, that Danish citizens can rely on. Attending to the specific needs of diverse groups of students may be time-consuming and often a challenge (Heacox, 2002). REDS aimed to understand how the support of students changed during the pandemic. For example, some students had no or only limited access to digital devices and therefore could not participate in online lessons (see Table 4.2.5). REDS asked teachers to specify whether they found it difficult to support specific groups of students. Table 4.4.5 presents the percentages of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing to various respective statements (the remaining response options were “disagree” and “strongly disagree”), out of the teachers who taught their class remotely during the disruption. The vast majority of teachers in all the participating countries agreed that it was difficult to provide lower achieving and vulnerable students with the support they required. Fewer teachers from the United Arab Emirates supported these statements (54% and 66% for the respective statements). These results indicate that lower achieving and vulnerable students may have been more lacking in support than others. Further, about two thirds or more of the teachers in most countries reported that they had not enough time to provide differential teaching to suit the individual needs of their students (exceptions: United Arab Emirates – 39%, Uzbekistan – 48%). Finding it difficult to attend to the needs of specific groups of students may be related to the specific circumstances of the pandemic, but also to a lack in abilities and skills of teachers regarding this task. In 2019, on average, across more than 60 educational systems, two thirds of grade 8 students had mathematics and science teachers indicating a need for professional development on the topic of addressing individual students’ needs (Mullis et al., 2020). There was little variation on this across the countries, indicating this is a global topic of concern. REDS asked teachers who had taught their class remotely during the disruption whether they undertook professional learning in working with diverse and vulnerable students prior to the pandemic, with the following response options “yes, before the COVID-19 disruption,” “yes, during or after the COVID-19 disruption,” and “no, I have never undertaken professional learning in this area.” The percentages of teachers who attended such professional development before the disruption are shown in Table 4.4.6. With very few exceptions, less than half or even fewer teachers reported to have undertaken such training. Professional development in the topic of teaching classes in which students have a wide range of achievement was slightly more common than training on working with vulnerable students. Lacking physical supervision of teachers, resilient and perseverant students may have been more able to stay on task than their peers. This is another feature of students that may have been important during remote schooling. The percentages of teachers reporting they undertook professional learning or strengthening their skills to stimulate this trait in their students before the disruption varied largely among countries, ranging from 20% or fewer respondents in Burkina Faso, Denmark, and Slovenia, to 60% in Uzbekistan. It is widely accepted that students’ well-being is a prerequisite of learning. During the COVID-19 pandemic, students’ well-being was at least potentially jeopardized by the various effects of the pandemic. To name just a few of those effects, students could not or not easily meet with friends, they may even have not been allowed to leave their homes due to quarantine measures or fear of infection risks, some may have suffered by financial or emotional difficulties within their families.116 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 4. 4: T ea ch er s p ro vi di ng su pp or t t o st ud en ts a nd th ei r f am ili es d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on to a la rg e or so m e ex te nt R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e (1 ) T o a la rg e ex te nt (2 ) T o so m e ex te nt (3 ) T o a sm al l e xt en t a nd (4 ) N ot a t a ll P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s p ro vi d in g su p p o rt o r in fo rm at io n a b o u t th e fo llo w in g to p ic s to a la rg e o r so m e ex te n t St u d y sk ill s an d s tr at eg ie s O rg an iz at io n o f s ch o o l d ay s A cc es s to le ar ni ng m at er ia l A d vi ce a b o u t h o w t o a cc es s fi n an ci al s u p p o rt In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 7 5 (8 .3 ) 6 5 (9 .2 ) 7 5 (7 .8 ) 6 6 (4 .3 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 7 6 (1 .4 ) 7 4 (1 .3 ) 8 7 (1 .1 ) 3 0 (1 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 8 3 (1 .4 ) 7 5 (1 .5 ) 9 6 (0 .6 ) 3 0 (1 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 9 1 (0 .8 ) 8 1 (1 .0 ) 9 4 (0 .5 ) 3 2 (1 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 8 4 (1 .6 ) 4 0 (1 .8 ) 8 9 (0 .9 ) 5 5 (1 .8 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 7 6 4 5 7 1 1 9 D en m ar kg ,i 6 5 9 7 4 8 4 2 E th io p ia i 6 1 6 9 6 2 6 5 5 4 K en ya i e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 7 1 k 8 2 k117 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 4. 5: T ea ch er s’ c ap ac it y to su pp or t s tu de nt s d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y It w as d if fi cu lt t o p ro vi d e lo w er ac h ie vi n g st u d en ts w it h t h e le ar n in g su p p o rt t h ey r eq u ir ed It w as d if fi cu lt t o p ro vi d e vu ln er ab le s tu d en ts w it h t h e su p p o rt t h ey r eq u ir ed I d id n ot h av e en ou gh ti m e to p ro vi de d if fe re n ti at ed t ea ch in g to s u it t h e in d iv id u al n ee d s o f m y st u d en ts O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s ag re ei n g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 8 9 (3 .4 ) 9 0 (3 .5 ) 7 8 (4 .3 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 7 8 (2 .1 ) 7 8 (1 .7 ) 6 7 (2 .3 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 9 3 (0 .7 ) 9 6 (0 .6 ) 6 7 (1 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 5 4 (1 .5 ) 6 6 (1 .5 ) 3 9 (1 .5 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 8 2 (1 .1 ) 8 5 (0 .9 ) 4 8 (1 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 8 6 7 9 6 8 D en m ar kg ,i 6 8 5 9 2 6 8 E th io p ia i 6 1 7 4 7 2 6 7 K en ya i e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 k k k118 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION As a result, students’ well-being became a focus during the pandemic, and previous opportunities to develop related skills within teaching personnel could have paid off during the educational disruption. Between as few as 16% (Burkina Faso) and 52% (Uzbekistan) of the teachers in the countries reported to have been trained in this topic, certainly a percentage worth being increased at least in some countries in the future. Overall, teachers in the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan reported more professional development opportunities than teachers in other countries before the disruption. Vice versa, the percentages of teachers in Burkina Faso, Denmark, and Slovenia who undertook professional development in the investigated areas were the smallest. Schools providing and receiving help and support Principals play an important role in the educational system. Among other tasks, they implement with varying levels of autonomy strategies devised by higher educational authorities, they provide leadership in pedagogy, but also coordinate teaching and learning at their schools. The demands on filling these roles increased suddenly and significantly at the beginning of the pandemic. Without precedent, with relatively little external guidance, and constantly and rapidly changing requirements, they had to implement measures to decrease infection risks. These measures were for example full or partial school closures, and later, various health/sanitation practices to reestablish face-to-face learning. At the same time, they had to advise teachers on how to continue schooling, often in a remote format. REDS asked school principals whether the use of resources and activities related to remote teaching had increased at their schools, the response options were “substantially increased,” “increased to some degree,” “not relevant in our school neither before nor during the COVID-19 disruption,” “decreased to some degree,” and “substantially decreased.” The percentages of principals reporting increases are presented in Table 4.4.7. Nearly all schools in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uruguay reported to have increased access to the use of online platforms and tools for self-directed or collaborative learning, access to tools that help teachers with remote learning, and professional development activities focused on delivering remote teaching. In the same countries, almost as many schools increased the use of resources for effective remote teaching pedagogy (between 77% in Uruguay and 99% in Slovenia), and for peer collaboration opportunities (between 73% in the Russian Federation and 98% in Slovenia). In Uzbekistan, around three quarters of the schools amplified the use of the mentioned resources, and about half of the principals in India and Rwanda indicated this as well. On the other hand, about a quarter of the schools or less in Ethiopia and Kenya increased related activities and the use of resources, and even fewer schools in Burkina Faso.15 Finally, many Danish participating principals indicated an increased use of the mentioned tools, half reported to have seen an increase of peer collaboration opportunities, but very few said that professional development focusing on delivering remote teaching increased during the disruption. Principals were further asked about changes in the support services they provided to parents and guardians on specific topics. Anticipating the specific needs of some groups of students, REDS asked if schools changed their support services for students with special needs (in the case they accommodate such students), students whose home language is not the language of instruction, and the overall provision of support services. Table 4.4.8 presents the percentages of principals who reported that providing a support service “substantially increased” or “increased to some degree” during the COVID-19 disruption (further available response options were “did not change,” “decreased to some degree,” and “substantially decreased”). The responses varied largely across countries, and less so by topic. Support services for learners with a mother tongue different to the language of instruction were increased less often than those for students with special needs, or other support services. Out of the schools accommodating students with special needs, more than half increased their support in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan. The same countries showed a medium to high increase 15 Most principals indicated for all questions that they are “not relevant in their school neither before nor during the COVID-19 disruption” in Burkina Faso.119 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 4. 6: T ea ch er s’ p ro fe ss io na l d ev el op m en t i n se le ct ed a re as b ef or e th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 )Y es , b ef or e th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (2 )Y es , d ur in g or a ft er th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (3 ) N o, I ha ve n ev er u nd er ta ke n pr of es si on al le ar ni ng in th is a re a P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s w h o u n d er to o k p ro fe ss io n al le ar n in g in t h e fo llo w in g ar ea s b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n W o rk in g w it h v u ln er ab le st u d en ts Te ac h in g cl as se s in w h ic h th e st u d en ts h av e a w id e ra n ge o f a ch ie ve m en t D ev el op in g st ud en t re si lie nc e St u d en t w el l- b ei n g In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 3 4 (7 .6 ) 4 2 (6 .1 ) 3 2 (6 .5 ) 4 3 (4 .7 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 2 7 (1 .3 ) 3 8 (1 .7 ) 2 8 (1 .6 ) 1 9 (1 .3 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 3 9 (1 .9 ) 2 0 (1 .2 ) 1 4 (1 .4 ) 3 0 (1 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 4 9 (1 .6 ) 5 4 (1 .5 ) 4 2 (1 .5 ) 4 7 (1 .4 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 3 0 (1 .5 ) 6 0 (1 .5 ) 6 1 (1 .9 ) 5 2 (1 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 7 1 1 9 1 6 D en m ar kg ,i 6 2 0 1 7 1 4 3 5 E th io p ia i 6 1 2 8 4 5 2 7 3 9 K en ya i e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 k 3 5 k k120 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 7: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at in cr ea se d th e us e of re so ur ce s a nd a ct iv it ie s d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) N ot re le va nt in o ur sc ho ol n ei th er b ef or e no r d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (2 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (3 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (4 ) D id no t c ha ng e (5 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (6 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed A cc es s to a n d u se o f o n lin e p la tf o rm s an d t o o ls fo r se lf -d ir ec te d o r co lla b o ra ti ve le ar n in g C o u n tr y A cc es s to t o o ls t h at h el p te ac h er s w it h r em o te te ac h in g P ro fe ss io n al d ev el o p m en t ac ti vi ti es fo cu se d o n d el iv er in g re m o te t ea ch in g R es ou rc es fo r ef fe ct iv e re m ot e te ac hi ng p ed ag og y P ee r co lla b o ra ti o n o p p o rt u n it ie s B u rk in a F as o 7 (3 .2 ) 1 (0 .8 ) 4 (2 .3 ) 6 (3 .1 ) 1 0 (3 .3 ) E th io p ia j 1 5 (3 .2 ) 1 7 (3 .4 ) 2 8 (5 .0 ) 2 2 (4 .5 ) 2 5 (4 .5 ) In d ia 6 1 (5 .6 ) 6 2 (5 .2 ) 5 2 (7 .3 ) 5 1 (7 .0 ) 5 8 (5 .9 ) K en ya g, j 2 6 (5 .9 ) 2 7 (5 .6 ) 2 9 (5 .9 ) 2 5 (5 .5 ) 2 6 (5 .4 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 8 5 (4 .4 ) 9 1 (3 .2 ) 8 1 (4 .0 ) 8 9 (3 .3 ) 7 3 (5 .3 ) R w an d a 5 4 (4 .3 ) 4 7 (4 .5 ) 5 0 (4 .1 ) 5 2 (4 .4 ) 4 6 (4 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 8 9 (3 .5 ) 9 2 (2 .3 ) 9 9 (0 .5 ) 9 9 (0 .7 ) 9 8 (1 .3 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 8 (1 .4 ) 9 9 (0 .6 ) 9 8 (1 .2 ) 9 8 (0 .8 ) 7 8 (5 .3 ) U ru gu ay g, j 9 8 (1 .4 ) 9 5 (2 .2 ) 9 2 (2 .8 ) 7 7 (5 .9 ) 9 5 (2 .3 ) U zb ek is ta n j 7 6 (4 .8 ) 8 5 (4 .1 ) 6 0 (5 .6 ) 7 8 (3 .9 ) 7 0 (4 .8 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 7 8 n 8 4 n 2 5 n 2 1 n 5 5 n121 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k Th is it em w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 8: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls p ro vi di ng in cr ea se d su pp or t t o pa re nt s a nd g ua rd ia ns d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed Su p p o rt s er vi ce s fo r st u d en ts w it h sp ec ia l n ee d s C o u n tr y Su p p o rt s er vi ce s fo r st u d en ts w h o se h o m e la n gu ag e is n o t th e la n gu ag e o f i n st ru ct io n at s ch o o l O ve ra ll p ro vi si o n o f s u p p o rt se rv ic es B u rk in a F as o 6 (1 .7 ) 3 (1 .5 ) 5 (2 .4 ) E th io p ia j 3 5 (5 .4 ) 2 5 (4 .3 ) 4 0 (5 .4 ) In d ia k k k K en ya g, j 1 4 (3 .9 ) 2 1 (4 .4 ) 2 4 (4 .7 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 6 8 (5 .6 ) 3 6 (4 .8 ) 7 1 (4 .8 ) R w an d a 3 6 (4 .3 ) 2 7 (3 .8 ) 3 3 (4 .0 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 8 8 (3 .7 ) 6 7 (5 .7 ) 8 3 (4 .8 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 8 3 (6 .0 ) 6 3 (5 .5 ) 8 1 (5 .3 ) U ru gu ay g, j 6 2 (8 .1 ) k 4 5 (6 .5 ) U zb ek is ta n j 7 6 (6 .8 ) 4 1 (5 .4 ) 6 4 (5 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 4 1 n 2 5 n 2 3 n122 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION in overall support levels at their schools. Respondents in Burkina Faso, Denmark, Ethiopia, and Kenya indicated generally low levels of an increase in support. As observed, the requirements for principals and teachers to fulfill their roles changed, whereas parents/guardians faced an actual role change. Suddenly they had to assume at least in parts tasks and responsibilities regarding their children’s learning that usually lie with their teachers. They had to help their children organize their school day, encourage them to find materials, use digital devices, explain their schoolwork and so on (see also the section around Table 4.4.2). All this, without being trained, and perhaps in addition to managing their own job, and caring for multiple siblings. Hence, many parents or guardians needed to receive help and support with these tasks. As presented in Table 4.4.4, they received some help from their children’s teachers, but they also received support from their child’s school. School principals were asked if their school provided any specific support measures for parents or guardians, the available response options were “yes, this was also provided before the COVID-19 disruption,” “yes, this was only provided during the COVID-19 disruption,” and “no.” The percentages of principal’s reporting on the provision of support before or during the reference period is presented in the two parts of Table 4.4.9. A vast majority of schools in most countries participating in REDS provided support to parents and guardians on topics surrounding the planning of the school day, provision of learning materials, how to help children with specific aspects of their schoolwork, the amount of work that can reasonably be expected per day, but also on emotional support and support services available to families and children. Lower levels of support could be observed in Rwanda and yet even lower levels in Kenya, where around half of the schools stated they provided these supports. In Burkina Faso, however, for most topics only a quarter of principals reported to providing support to parents/guardians. Finally, REDS gave school principals a voice to report how well-supported they felt by educational authorities and other people related with their schools, as presented in Table 4.4.10, the response options were “very well,” “somewhat,” and “not at all.” In most countries, more than three quarters of principals felt at least “somewhat” supported by their national education authority. Still about two thirds of the principals felt supported by their authorities in Burkina Faso and Ethiopia, and less so in Kenya (59%) and India (43%), the latter however reporting relatively high support levels from provincial education authorities. Provincial educational authorities also played a role in many other countries, a significant source of schools’ support, according to principals’ reports. In nine out of the eleven countries, however, only about half or even much fewer principals felt supported by teacher unions. Also, parents or guardians and the local community provided important support to many schools in the participating countries, ranging from one third of principal respondents in Burkina Faso stating this, to about three quarters or more in Denmark, India, Rwanda, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan. It should be noted though that this leaves a substantial number of principals who didn’t feel supported at all by the various stakeholders. Further, there is large variation between countries regarding the percentages of principals who felt very well-supported, or somewhat supported (not tabulated in this report). In-depth analysis may reveal further significant information for political stakeholders in the participating countries. References Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15326985EP3804_2 Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. How to reach and teach all learners, grades 3-12. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/ Differentiating+Instruction+in+the+Regular+Classroom%3a+How+to+Reach...-a0160812886 Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: https:// timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/123 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y A d vi ce o n h o w t o p la n A d vi ce o n h o w t o h el p A d vi ce o n t h e am o u n t o f A d vi ce o n h o w t o h el p In fo rm at io n a b o u t th e th e sc h o o l w o rk in g d ay th ei r ch ild re n p re p ar e w o rk t h at c an b e re as o n ab ly ch ild re n w it h s p ec ifi c cu rr ic u lu m c o n te n t th at st u d y p la n s ex p ec te d p er d ay as p ec ts o f t h ei r sc h o o lw o rk st u d en ts w o u ld b e co ve ri n g N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 9: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls p ro vi di ng su pp or t t o pa re nt s a nd g ua rd ia ns b ef or e or d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es , t hi s w as a ls o pr ov id ed b ef or e th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (2 ) Y es , t hi s w as o nl y pr ov id ed d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on a nd (3 ) N o B u rk in a F as o 2 5 (4 .2 ) 3 8 (5 .7 ) 2 6 (4 .3 ) 4 5 (5 .7 ) 2 7 (5 .1 ) E th io p ia j 8 3 (3 .0 ) 8 3 (4 .1 ) 7 9 (3 .8 ) 8 3 (3 .5 ) 7 8 (4 .5 ) In d ia 8 5 (4 .0 ) 7 9 (8 .9 ) 8 6 (6 .9 ) 8 1 (8 .1 ) 8 8 (4 .3 ) K en ya g, j 5 5 (6 .1 ) 6 2 (5 .5 ) 5 1 (6 .1 ) 5 6 (6 .1 ) 5 3 (6 .2 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 1 0 0 (0 .2 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) 1 0 0 (0 .2 ) 1 0 0 (0 .3 ) 1 0 0 (0 .2 ) R w an d a 7 2 (3 .6 ) 8 3 (3 .1 ) 6 0 (3 .7 ) 7 9 (3 .4 ) 6 8 (4 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) 9 9 (0 .7 ) 9 6 (1 .5 ) 9 9 (0 .6 ) 9 9 (0 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 7 (0 .8 ) 9 8 (1 .1 ) 9 8 (0 .2 ) 9 9 (0 .8 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) U ru gu ay g, j 8 6 (3 .9 ) 7 7 (4 .6 ) 8 3 (5 .3 ) 9 3 (2 .1 ) 8 7 (3 .9 ) U zb ek is ta n j 8 6 (4 .0 ) 9 5 (3 .1 ) 8 3 (4 .3 ) 9 2 (3 .6 ) 9 1 (3 .7 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 8 0 n 8 6 n 9 8 n 9 4 n 9 4 n124 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 T ab le , 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 9: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls p ro vi di ng su pp or t t o pa re nt s a nd g ua rd ia ns b ef or e or d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es , t hi s w as a ls o pr ov id ed b ef or e th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (2 ) Y es , t hi s w as o nl y pr ov id ed d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on a nd (3 ) N o P ro vi si o n o f t ea ch in g m at er ia ls a n d w o rk sh ee ts E xp la n at io n o f c h an ge s in a ss es sm en t In fo rm at io n a b o u t p ro vi d in g em o ti o n al s u p p o rt t o t h ei r ch ild re n In fo rm at io n a b o u t su p p o rt se rv ic es a va ila b le t o fa m ili es an d c h ild re n E xp ec ta ti o n s re ga rd in g sa fe a n d r es p ec tf u l o n lin e b eh av io u r B u rk in a F as o 2 2 (5 .9 ) 2 9 (4 .5 ) 9 (2 .8 ) 3 3 (4 .9 ) 2 3 (4 .8 ) E th io p ia j 8 7 (3 .3 ) 7 7 (4 .5 ) 4 6 (4 .9 ) 8 6 (2 .3 ) 9 0 (2 .1 ) In d ia 8 8 (5 .1 ) 7 8 (7 .9 ) 7 2 (8 .5 ) 7 8 (8 .1 ) 7 8 (6 .8 ) K en ya g, j 4 3 (5 .5 ) 4 8 (6 .4 ) 3 9 (6 .1 ) 6 1 (5 .6 ) 5 2 (5 .9 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 1 0 0 (0 .3 ) 9 3 (2 .9 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) 1 0 0 (0 .3 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) R w an d a 6 3 (4 .1 ) 6 4 (3 .8 ) 6 9 (4 .0 ) 7 6 (3 .5 ) 7 6 (3 .4 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 8 9 (2 .3 ) 9 8 (1 .4 ) 9 7 (1 .2 ) 9 9 (0 .8 ) 9 8 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 3 (2 .1 ) 9 8 (1 .8 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) 9 8 (1 .2 ) U ru gu ay g, j 9 0 (4 .0 ) 9 4 (2 .8 ) 9 4 (2 .0 ) 8 5 (4 .6 ) 9 4 (2 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n j 6 9 (5 .1 ) 8 8 (4 .2 ) 9 1 (3 .9 ) 9 5 (3 .4 ) 9 3 (3 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 9 4 n 7 3 n 9 4 n 8 8 n 8 0 n125 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 4. 10 : P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls fe el in g ve ry w el l o r s om ew ha t s up po rt ed b y pe op le o r o rg an iz at io ns d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) V er y w el l ( 2) S om ew ha t ( 3) N ot a t a ll N at io n al e d u ca ti o n au th o ri ty P ro vi n ci al e d u ca ti o n au th o ri ty P ar en ts /g u ar d ia n s T h e lo ca l c o m m u n it y Te ac h er u n io n s B u rk in a F as o 6 3 (6 .9 ) 6 1 (6 .8 ) 1 6 (3 .7 ) 3 5 (5 .3 ) 3 4 (4 .8 ) E th io p ia j 6 7 (5 .3 ) 7 2 (5 .0 ) 7 0 (4 .8 ) 6 0 (4 .5 ) 7 9 (4 .3 ) In d ia 4 3 (6 .9 ) 7 4 (7 .4 ) 5 9 (8 .2 ) 7 7 (6 .8 ) 7 1 (7 .8 ) K en ya g, j 5 9 (6 .5 ) 5 2 (6 .3 ) 2 7 (5 .9 ) 6 8 (4 .7 ) 5 3 (6 .0 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 8 3 (4 .3 ) 8 9 (3 .4 ) 4 8 (5 .4 ) 8 3 (4 .1 ) 5 1 (6 .1 ) R w an d a 8 9 (2 .7 ) 7 3 (3 .9 ) 5 2 (4 .7 ) 7 5 (3 .6 ) 7 7 (3 .5 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 8 3 (4 .1 ) 9 8 (1 .2 ) 2 8 (5 .2 ) 8 8 (3 .3 ) 7 7 (4 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 2 (2 .4 ) 9 0 (2 .7 ) 3 4 (4 .9 ) 9 7 (1 .7 ) 8 4 (4 .8 ) U ru gu ay g, j 8 1 (4 .6 ) k 4 5 (6 .1 ) 9 2 (2 .5 ) k U zb ek is ta n j 9 4 (2 .0 ) 9 6 (1 .9 ) 8 6 (3 .3 ) 8 4 (4 .0 ) 7 6 (5 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 7 6 n 7 6 n 5 0 n 8 8 n 5 1 n126 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION 4.5 Well-being of students and teachers Mojca Rožman, Sabine Meinck, Minge Chen Section highlights The severe limitations posed on public life in many countries and the uncertainty on how to deal with the new situation of the pandemic might have not only affected teaching and learning, but also the well-being of students and teachers. In addition, in a time with uncertainty in different domains, tailored support might have helped to cope with the changing conditions. In REDS, students reported on the negative effects on their emotional well-being, but also on the supportive structures in place. • Many students felt lonelier, a vast majority, missed contact with their classmates, many were worried about how the disruption impacted their learning and will affect their future education. • Many students reported that they felt fit and healthy and had supportive classmates. • The consequences of the disruption did not seem to affect the feeling of school belonging too severely, with about two thirds or more students in six out of eight countries reporting that they still felt part of the school. Teachers reported on the negative effects on their well-being, their perspective on the implemented measures at school, and their ability to cope with the changes. • Many teachers across countries reported they had concerns about catching COVID-19 at work. They felt fatigue most of the time, their sleeping patterns were interrupted, and they felt isolated whilst working at home. • Most teachers agreed that they were satisfied with the infection control protocols implemented at their school. • The majority of teachers across countries agreed, however, that they were able to cope with changes in teaching and learning methods, and they were able to meet the requirements of their job. Support was available for many teachers and students. • The majority of teachers agreed that they felt supported by the school leadership, their colleagues, and by their social network outside of school. • Most teachers and schools provided various information related to well-being. This was generally confirmed by responses of the support recipients (teachers and students) in most countries.127 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Introduction As a response to the pandemic, many countries introduced limitations to public life such as school closures, working from home, travel restrictions, etc. and as such public life was severely limited in many places around the world. These limitations and the uncertainty about their duration, followed by constant changes to the restrictions, affected many people world-wide and can be assumed to have affected the well-being of students and teachers as well. In an unpredictable time regarding many aspects of life, the right support could have helped to cope with the changed and changing conditions. This section focuses on the emotional and physical well-being of students and teachers, and the support provided for well-being. The section addresses the REDS research question: what were the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on school staff and students, and how were these mitigated by measures within countries. Emotional and physical well-being of students Due to the COVID-19 disruption, several measures within schools and in daily life were introduced. The school closures might have differently impacted various groups of students. REDS asked students whether specific statements about learning at home during the COVID-19 disruption, applied to them, with the following response options available “never or hardly ever,” “sometimes,” “most of the time,” and “always.” The percentages of students to whom the statements applied at least most of the time are presented in Table 4.5.1. These statements are intended to describe the learning conditions that students faced during remote learning and are specially focused on pandemic related challenges. Of note, for Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya the percentages are out of the responding students who did some schoolwork during the disruption. More than half of students in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan felt safer at home than they usually do at school. The percentages are lower for responding students in Burkina Faso (37%), Denmark (44%), Ethiopia (27%), and Kenya (24%). More than half of students were at least most of the time happy to be at home in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan. The same held true for responding students in Denmark. However, only less than one third of responding students in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya supported this statement. A large percentage of responding students from Burkina Faso (35%) and Ethiopia (47%) had to look after siblings, potentially leaving less time for schoolwork. About one fifth of students in the United Arab Emirates and responding students in Denmark missed meals at home because they rely on meals offered at school. Students had to organize their daily routine anew during the disruption. REDS asked students to indicate their level of agreement with statements about their emotional and physical well- being and provided the following response options “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” In the two parts of Table 4.5.2 the percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statements are presented. On one hand, many students reported increased physical activities. Between a third of responding students in Burkina Faso and three quarters of students in Uzbekistan, agreed that they exercised more than usual during the disruption. Further, many students across countries were able to do more than their usual outside of school activities. A majority of students in all participating countries reported that they felt fit and healthy. On the other hand, roughly around half of the students felt more lonely than usual and got upset over things that would not have normally bothered them. Similarly, about half of the students across countries reported feeling angry more often than usual, and that they did not sleep as well as before the disruption. Friends and family are very important for adolescents, likely even more when their usual routines and school contacts are disturbed. However, a quarter to a little less than half of the students across countries did not feel like contacting friends. This is in line with the finding that most students agreed that they were more worried than usual about their friends and family getting sick. Finally, 66% (Slovenia) up to 82% (Uzbekistan) of students reported using social media a lot more than before the disruption, except for responding students from Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya, where less than half of the students indicated this.128 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. a T hi s q ue st io n w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry a ss um in g al l s tu de nt s e ng ag ed in so m e sc ho ol w or k du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 1: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s w ho re po rt ed o n va ri ou s i m pa ct s o f l ea rn in g at h om e m os t o f t he ti m e or a lw ay s R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) N ev er o r h ar dl y ev er (2 ) S om et im es (3 ) M os t o f t he ti m e an d (4 ) A lw ay s P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts d o in g n o s ch o o lw o rk a t al l d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e st u d en ts d o in g sc h o o lw o rk d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f s tu d en ts t o w h o m t h e fo llo w in g ap p lie d t o t h ei r le ar n in g at h o m e m o st o f t h e ti m e o r al w ay s Fe lt s af er a t h o m e th an u su al ly a t sc h o o l W er e h ap py t o b e at h o m e H ad to lo ok a ft er si bl in gs M is se d m ea ls a t h o m e b ec au se s tu d en ts r el y o n th e m ea ls o ff er ed a t sc h o o l R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h a 6 3 (1 .1 ) 6 3 (1 .1 ) 1 6 (0 .8 ) 7 (0 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g a 5 3 (1 .0 ) 6 2 (1 .2 ) 1 8 (0 .8 ) 1 1 (0 .8 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es a 5 7 (1 .0 ) 5 5 (1 .1 ) 2 5 (1 .0 ) 2 1 (0 .9 ) U zb ek is ta n h a 5 5 (1 .3 ) 3 1 (1 .2 ) 1 5 (1 .0 ) k D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 3 7 1 8 3 5 5 D en m ar k a 4 4 5 0 8 2 1 E th io p ia h 4 4 n 2 7 2 2 4 7 1 3 K en ya h 2 1 n 2 4 1 7 2 8 1 3129 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 2: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts re ga rd in g th ei r w el l-b ei ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee I e xe rc is ed (i n cl u d in g w al ki n g) m o re t h an u su al I w as a b le t o d o m o re o f m y u su al o u ts id e o f s ch o o l ac ti vi ti es I f el t m o re lo n el y th an u su al I g o t u p se t ov er t h in gs t h at w o u ld n o t h av e n o rm al ly b o th er ed m e I f el t fi t an d h ea lt hy R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 4 9 (1 .3 ) 6 3 (1 .1 ) 7 5 (0 .9 ) 3 8 (1 .2 ) 3 4 (1 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 6 1 (1 .3 ) 5 3 (1 .2 ) 7 5 (0 .9 ) 5 3 (1 .2 ) 5 1 (1 .3 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 6 7 (1 .0 ) 4 7 (1 .1 ) 6 3 (1 .2 ) 5 6 (1 .0 ) 5 7 (1 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n h 7 7 (1 .3 ) 5 7 (1 .6 ) 9 0 (0 .6 ) 4 6 (1 .5 ) 4 6 (1 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 3 8 3 2 6 5 6 4 5 8 D en m ar k 4 6 n 2 3 n 6 0 n 5 8 n 4 6 n E th io p ia h 5 6 4 3 6 3 6 2 6 1 K en ya h 6 3 3 9 5 7 6 3 6 0130 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 2: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts re ga rd in g th ei r w el l-b ei ng d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee I f el t an gr y m o re o ft en th an u su al I d id n o t fe el li ke c o n ta ct in g m y fr ie n d s I u se d s o ci al m ed ia a lo t m o re t h an b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n I d id n o t sl ee p a s w el l a s b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n I w as m o re w o rr ie d t h an u su al a b o u t m y fr ie n d s an d fa m ily g et ti n g si ck R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 3 6 (1 .3 ) 2 7 (0 .8 ) 7 1 (1 .2 ) 7 0 (1 .0 ) 2 8 (1 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 4 9 (1 .1 ) 3 7 (1 .1 ) 6 2 (1 .1 ) 6 6 (0 .9 ) 3 9 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 5 1 (1 .4 ) 4 6 (1 .2 ) 7 8 (0 .9 ) 7 4 (0 .9 ) 4 7 (1 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n h 4 0 (1 .5 ) 4 7 (1 .5 ) 8 6 (0 .8 ) 8 2 (1 .0 ) 4 3 (1 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 5 5 3 5 8 4 2 0 5 1 D en m ar k 4 8 n 2 4 n 5 8 n 6 9 n 3 7 n E th io p ia h 5 1 3 5 7 1 4 5 4 9 K en ya h 5 3 4 3 7 9 4 4 3 7131 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Another question asked students to indicate the level of agreement they had with statements about how they felt during the disruption, with the following response options available “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” In the three parts of Table 4.5.3 the percentages of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statements are shown. Many students reported on negative effects of the disruption. More than half of students across the countries agreed that they felt anxious about the changes in their schooling. The exception is Denmark, where a bit less than one third of responding students agreed to this statement. The lower percentage in Denmark might be partially explained by the shorter duration of the initial disruption compared to other countries (see Table 4.2.1 and Figure 4.2.1). Many students across countries consistently reported they felt overwhelmed by the happenings around the world and on the local level due to the pandemic, they were worried about how the disruption affected their learning and the effects to their future education. While most students across countries missed their usual contact with classmates, more than half of the students had one or more teachers to whom they felt comfortable to ask for help. An exception to this is Burkina Faso, where only one fourth of responding students reported this. About half of the students from participating countries could not get their usual level of support from non-teaching staff but felt supported by their school. There are lower percentages of responding students that reported feeling supported by the school in Burkina Faso (32%) and Kenya (34%). The consequences of the disruption did not affect too severely the feeling of school belonging, with about two thirds or more students in six out of eight countries still feeling part of the school during the disruption. More than two thirds of responding students in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya and students from the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan agreed that they were worried about catching COVID-19. The percentage was a bit lower for responding students in Denmark (41%), students from the Russian Federation (53%), and Slovenia (39%). In addition, about two thirds or more of students across countries agreed that classmates were supportive of each other. This percentage was lower for responding students from Burkina Faso (40%) and Kenya (48%). Lastly, about half of students across the countries agreed that they found it difficult to concentrate on their schoolwork. As indicated above, family plays an important supportive role in a child’s life. REDS inquired about the family situation of the student respondents. They were asked if they were affected by specific situations during the COVID-19 disruption, with the response options “yes” or “no.” The percentages of students with affirmative responses are presented in Table 4.5.4. The percentages of students who had one or both parents lose their job were rather low, except for responding students in Ethiopia and Kenya, and students from Uzbekistan. There were about one third of affected responding students in Ethiopia and students in Uzbekistan, and almost two thirds of responding students in Kenya. About half or more students reported that their families had to be more careful with money than usual, with the exception of responding students in Denmark (15%), students from the Russian Federation (26%), and Slovenia (25%). About half of the responding students in Denmark, Ethiopia, Kenya, and students in the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan reported that one or both of their parents had to work from home, whereas the percentages in the rest of the countries were a bit lower. In addition, students across participating countries often reported that their parents were stressed about their job. Emotional and physical well-being of teachers Teachers’ well-being was affected by the disruption as well. REDS asked teachers to indicate their level of agreement on statements about their well-being during the disruption by the following response options “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” or “strongly disagree.” As the statements were mostly about work, the percentages are reported out of the teachers that did teach their students remotely during the disruption. The results are presented in Table 4.5.5. More than half to almost all teachers across the countries reported they had concerns about catching COVID-19 at work. The percentage was especially high for responding teachers in Burkina Faso (97%), India132 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 3: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts a bo ut h ow th ey fe lt du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 3 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee I f el t an xi o u s ab o u t th e ch an ge s in m y sc h o o lin g I f el t ov er w h el m ed b y w h at w as h ap p en in g in t h e w o rl d d u e to t h e C O V ID -1 9 p an d em ic I w as w o rr ie d a b o u t h o w t h e d is ru p ti o n af fe ct ed m y le ar n in g I w as w o rr ie d a b o u t h o w t h is d is ru p ti o n w ill af fe ct m y fu tu re e d u ca ti o n I f el t ov er w h el m ed b y w h at w as h ap p en in g in m y lo ca l a re a d u e to t h e C O V ID -1 9 p an d em ic R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 5 6 (1 .2 ) 6 9 (1 .1 ) 4 4 (1 .3 ) 6 4 (1 .2 ) 6 7 (1 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 5 8 (1 .3 ) 5 0 (1 .3 ) 5 4 (1 .3 ) 5 9 (1 .3 ) 6 3 (1 .3 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 0 (1 .1 ) 7 5 (1 .0 ) 6 5 (1 .0 ) 7 4 (1 .1 ) 7 4 (1 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n h 7 0 (1 .4 ) 9 0 (0 .7 ) 7 8 (1 .4 ) 8 0 (1 .0 ) 8 0 (1 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 5 9 0 8 7 8 9 9 0 D en m ar k 3 0 n 5 9 n 4 7 n 6 5 n 5 6 n E th io p ia h 7 3 7 0 7 3 8 2 8 1 K en ya h 7 1 6 7 6 4 8 0 8 1133 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 3: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts a bo ut h ow th ey fe lt du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 3 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee I m is se d t h e u su al c o n ta ct w it h m y cl as sm at es I h ad o n e o r m o re t ea ch er s w h o m I fe lt c o m fo rt ab le t o as k fo r h el p I f el t su p p o rt ed b y m y sc h o o l I s ti ll fe lt p ar t o f t h e sc h o o l I c o u ld n o t ge t m y u su al le ve l o f s u p p o rt fr o m n o n -t ea ch in g su p p o rt s ta ff R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 7 2 (1 .1 ) 7 6 (0 .8 ) 4 9 (1 .1 ) 5 9 (1 .5 ) 6 4 (1 .4 ) Sl ov en ia g 7 2 (1 .0 ) 7 3 (1 .2 ) 4 3 (1 .1 ) 5 2 (1 .4 ) 6 5 (1 .0 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 8 (0 .9 ) 7 9 (1 .0 ) 4 8 (1 .0 ) 8 0 (1 .0 ) 7 9 (1 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n h 9 3 (0 .7 ) 8 3 (1 .0 ) 5 8 (1 .2 ) 9 0 (0 .7 ) 8 8 (0 .8 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 6 2 4 6 4 3 2 5 5 D en m ar k 8 1 n 7 6 n 5 1 n 6 0 n 7 2 n E th io p ia h 8 0 5 7 5 6 6 0 7 7 K en ya h 8 0 4 3 5 5 3 4 6 1134 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 3: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts a bo ut h ow th ey fe lt du ri ng th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 3 o f 3 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee I w as w o rr ie d a b o u t ca tc h in g C O V ID -1 9 C o u n tr y M y cl as sm at es w er e su p p o rt iv e o f ea ch o th er I f o u n d it d if fi cu lt t o c o n ce n tr at e o n m y sc h o o lw o rk R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 5 3 (1 .3 ) 7 3 (0 .9 ) 4 4 (1 .3 ) Sl ov en ia g 3 9 (1 .2 ) 6 5 (1 .2 ) 5 6 (1 .3 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 3 (1 .1 ) 8 4 (0 .8 ) 5 7 (1 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n h 7 8 (1 .0 ) 9 0 (0 .8 ) 4 7 (1 .2 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 2 4 0 6 1 D en m ar k 4 1 n 7 2 n 6 6 n E th io p ia h 7 8 6 2 6 3 K en ya h 8 1 4 8 6 4135 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION (95%), the United Arab Emirates (85%), and Uzbekistan (88%). About half to two thirds of the teachers across participating countries felt fatigue most of the time, more than a third to two thirds stated their sleeping patterns were interrupted, and about as many felt isolated whilst working at home. More than four out of five teachers in India felt they needed assistance to support their well-being, and more than half of the teachers in most other countries agreed to this statement, too. Some negative effects were not as strong for responding teachers in Denmark, but in general, many teachers across the countries reported on various negative effects of the disruption affecting their well-being. Furthermore, teachers reported their level of agreement on statements regarding their ability to cope with the demands of work-related and private responsibilities, that had changed due to the school closures and may have been more conflicting than before the pandemic. The following response options were available “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” As before, the statements were mostly about work and the percentages reported are out of the teachers that taught their students remotely during the disruption. The results are presented in Table 4.5.6 in two table parts. Despite the negative effects of the pandemic on students’ and teachers’ well-being that are reported above, the majority of teachers seemed to develop coping strategies allowing them to address the challenges successfully. About two thirds or more teachers in seven out of ten countries reported being able to balance the needs of their work and personal responsibilities. More than half of the teachers across the countries felt in control of their working environment when they were working from home, and almost as many had time to socially interact with their colleagues. The last point was not true for Denmark, as only one fifth of the responding teachers agreed with the statement. More than two thirds of teachers across all countries agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to cope with changes in teaching and learning methods, and they were able to meet the requirements of their job. Similarly, high agreement levels can also be observed for other statements. A vast majority of teachers in most participating countries reported they knew where to find assistance to support their well-being (exception: responding teachers from Burkina Faso–53%), they were able to use their own methods to cope with stress, and they were able to maintain their normal exercise and health routine. For the last statement, less agreement was observed for responding teachers from Denmark (52%) and Uruguay (31%). In general, most teachers across countries agreed that they were satisfied with the infection control protocols implemented at their school. This percentage was the lowest for responding teachers from Burkina Faso (65%). Still there are at least one fifth of teachers that were not satisfied with the infection control protocols in Burkina Faso, Denmark, and Ethiopia which shows some room for improvement. Support for well-being The modifications in teaching and learning applied during the disruption affected teachers’ and students’ routines. Under such circumstances, support that is not directly related to teaching and learning might be a crucial factor that could reduce the negative effects of the pandemic on students’ and teachers’ well-being. REDS asked teachers about their agreement regarding the support offered or given to them by others during the disruption. The available response options were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” In the two parts of Table 4.5.7 the percentages of teachers that agreed or strongly agreed to a specific statement are presented. The vast majority of teachers agreed that they felt supported by the school leadership. This percentage was lower for responding teachers in Burkina Faso (51%), Ethiopia (69%), and Kenya (70%). Very similar patterns for teacher agreement about being supported by their colleagues, and by their social network outside of school could be observed (see second part of Table 4.5.7). There were more variations across countries regarding the reported support provided by the education systems and by the local community, the percentages being generally a bit lower for responding teachers from Burkina Faso and Denmark, and teachers in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, and Uruguay (the statement about local community support was not administered in Uruguay). Three out of four teachers agreed with the statement that the set of support mechanisms offered by their school was sufficient, except for responding teachers in Burkina Faso (29%), Ethiopia (54%), and Kenya (51%). More than half of the teachers in India,136 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 4: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s w ho w er e af fe ct ed b y di ff er en t s it ua ti on s R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o O n e o r b o th o f m y p ar en ts / gu ar d ia n s lo st t h ei r jo b C o u n tr y O u r fa m ily h ad t o b e m o re c ar ef u l w it h m o n ey t h an u su al O ne o r bo th o f m y pa re nt s/ gu ar di an s h ad t o w o rk fr o m h o m e O ne o r bo th o f m y pa re nt s/ gu ar di an s w er e st re ss ed a b o u t th ei r jo b R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 1 1 (0 .9 ) 2 6 (1 .1 ) 3 4 (1 .2 ) 3 8 (1 .2 ) Sl ov en ia g 8 (0 .6 ) 2 5 (0 .9 ) 3 8 (1 .2 ) 3 1 (1 .0 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 1 4 (0 .8 ) 4 9 (1 .2 ) 4 8 (1 .4 ) 4 3 (1 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n h 3 7 (1 .6 ) 6 3 (1 .3 ) 5 3 (1 .5 ) 5 3 (1 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 1 6 7 2 2 8 5 3 D en m ar k 9 n 1 5 n 6 0 n 4 1 n E th io p ia h 3 6 6 8 5 5 6 9 K en ya h 6 3 8 3 6 2 8 0137 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 5. 5: N eg at iv e ef fe ct s d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on o n te ac he rs ' w el l-b ei ng R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s ag re ei n g o r st ro n gl y ag re ei n g w it h t h e fo llo w in g st at em en ts I h ad c on ce rn s ab ou t ca tc hi ng C O V ID -1 9 a t w or k I f el t fa ti gu ed m o st o f th e ti m e I f el t is o la te d w h ils t w o rk in g at h o m e I f el t I n ee de d as si st an ce to s up po rt m y w el l- be in g M y sl ee p p at te rn s w er e in te rr u p te d In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 9 5 (1 .0 ) 5 1 (4 .1 ) 6 9 (4 .6 ) 6 9 (3 .8 ) 8 5 (2 .7 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 6 9 (2 .3 ) 6 4 (2 .1 ) 5 3 (2 .1 ) 5 9 (2 .2 ) 4 9 (2 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 5 5 (1 .7 ) 5 8 (1 .7 ) 4 4 (2 .1 ) 3 7 (1 .8 ) 4 7 (2 .0 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 8 5 (0 .9 ) 6 2 (1 .4 ) 6 2 (1 .5 ) 5 3 (1 .4 ) 5 7 (2 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n j 2 (0 .3 ) 8 8 (0 .9 ) 4 9 (1 .9 ) 4 3 (1 .8 ) 4 4 (1 .9 ) 5 0 (1 .9 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 9 7 5 0 4 7 8 4 7 9 D en m ar kg ,i 6 5 6 4 6 3 3 6 0 2 8 E th io p ia i 6 1 6 8 5 7 5 9 6 7 6 9 K en ya i e e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 k 7 1 6 1 5 2 6 0138 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . Ta bl e 4. 5. 6: T ea ch er s’ a bi lit ie s t o co pe w it h th e ch an gi ng jo b re qu ire m en ts d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s w h o a gr ee d o r st ro n gl y ag re ed w it h s ta te m en ts a b o u t th ei r w el l- b ei n g d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n I w as a bl e to b al an ce th e ne ed s of m y w or k an d pe rs on al r es po ns ib ili ti es I f el t in c o n tr o l o f m y w o rk in g en vi ro n m en t w h en I w as w o rk in g fr o m h o m e I w as a b le t o c o p e w it h ch an ge s in t ea ch in g an d le ar n in g m et h o d s I w as a bl e to m ee t a ll th e re qu ir em en ts o f m y jo b I h ad t im e to in te ra ct so ci al ly w it h m y co lle ag u es In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 8 3 (5 .1 ) 8 3 (4 .0 ) 7 6 (7 .3 ) 9 4 (2 .2 ) 8 4 (5 .0 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 6 8 (1 .8 ) 7 4 (1 .5 ) 6 2 (1 .7 ) 8 9 (1 .4 ) 9 0 (0 .9 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 5 8 (1 .7 ) 7 5 (1 .0 ) 5 6 (1 .9 ) 9 1 (0 .8 ) 8 8 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 7 2 (1 .3 ) 8 1 (1 .0 ) 5 2 (1 .8 ) 9 4 (0 .9 ) 9 2 (0 .9 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 8 7 (1 .4 ) 8 0 (0 .9 ) 6 9 (1 .6 ) 9 3 (0 .8 ) 8 8 (0 .8 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 8 9 5 4 6 5 7 0 6 8 D en m ar kg ,i 6 6 3 6 5 2 0 9 3 7 0 E th io p ia i 6 1 7 8 7 4 5 8 7 9 6 9 K en ya i e e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 5 3 5 2 4 1 9 0 8 1139 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g Lo w p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 5. 6: T ea ch er s’ a bi lit ie s t o co pe w it h th e ch an gi ng jo b re qu ire m en ts d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s w h o a gr ee d o r st ro n gl y ag re ed w it h s ta te m en ts a b o u t th ei r w el l- b ei n g d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n I k n ew w h er e to fi n d as si st an ce t o s u p p o rt m y w el l- b ei n g I w as a b le t o u se m y o w n m et h o d s to c o p e w it h s tr es s I w as a bl e to m ai nt ai n m y no rm al e xe rc is e an d he al th ro ut in es I w as s at is fi ed w it h t h e in fe ct io n c o n tr o l p ro to co ls b ei n g im p le m en te d a t m y sc h o o l In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 9 3 (3 .0 ) 8 5 (8 .5 ) 8 2 (4 .8 ) 9 1 (4 .7 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 7 7 (1 .4 ) 6 1 (2 .0 ) 6 7 (1 .9 ) 8 9 (0 .8 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 8 3 (1 .7 ) 7 3 (1 .1 ) 6 4 (1 .6 ) 8 5 (1 .3 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 8 7 (1 .0 ) 8 8 (1 .4 ) 5 8 (1 .7 ) 9 1 (1 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 9 3 (0 .6 ) 8 9 (0 .7 ) 9 2 (0 .8 ) 9 4 (0 .7 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 5 3 8 7 7 6 6 5 D en m ar kg ,i 6 7 5 8 0 5 2 7 3 E th io p ia i 6 1 7 5 7 2 7 5 7 3 K en ya i e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 6 4 6 6 3 1 k140 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Uzbekistan, and responding teachers in Ethiopia, and Kenya reported they felt the need to ask for professional support outside their school. In relation to the topic of well-being, school principals were asked if they provided different types of specific support services for staff during the COVID-19 disruption, using the response options “yes” or “no.” The percentage of schools where a specific support service was offered is presented in the two parts of Table 4.5.8. In general, very little support was offered by schools in Burkina Faso. This finding is in line with the low percentage of schools offering any remote teaching and learning during the disruption. Schools across the participating countries mostly used a peer support system. Especially schools from the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan, which offered different types of support for their staff in many schools, and to a smaller extent also those from India and Slovenia. For example, formal support networks, accommodations for teachers, professional association links, access to physical activity resources, access to nutritional information, online well-being management programmes, and training in the support of social and emotional health of others. The support offered least frequently in schools across participating countries during the disruption were informal/social events. The scope and type of support mechanisms varied greatly among countries and schools. Giving information about support options can provide an increase in the use of the support available and reduce the negative effects of the disruption. REDS asked teachers to what extent they provided support or information about specific topics to students in their reference class and their families during the disruption. The response options were “to a large extent,” “to some extent,” “to a small extent,” and “not at all.” The percentages of teachers, out of those teaching remotely during the disruption, that provided information at least to some extent to students in their class are reported in Table 4.5.9. Between half of the responding teachers in Uruguay and 84% of teachers in Uzbekistan, provided at least to some extent information on emotional well- being. The percentages of teachers providing information about health (including information on COVID-19) were also very high, except for responding teachers in Denmark (40%) and Uruguay (46%). This finding may indicate that schools were used as knowledge multipliers in some, but less so, in other countries. About two thirds or more of responding teachers in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and teachers in India, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan reported to have informed students and their families about nutrition. Information on access to welfare agencies was the most shared resource by teachers in India (61%) and responding teachers in Ethiopia (55%), almost half of the teachers in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan delivered respective support, but much less in the remaining countries. To complement the information from schools and teachers, students were asked if their school or teachers gave them information on well-being related topics during COVID-19 disruption, and respondents had the following response options “yes, and it was helpful,” “yes, but it was not helpful,” and “no.” The percentages of students who reported receiving helpful information are presented in two parts of Table 4.5.10. From students’ perspective across the participating countries, the most helpful information was health advice about COVID-19, the fewest of the responding students that reported receiving helpful information on this topic were in Burkina Faso (45%) and Denmark (34%). Moreover, more than 40% of students reported receiving helpful information about healthy working habits and maintaining physical fitness, except for responding students in Burkina Faso for both topics ,and Kenya for the last topic only. About 40% of the students or more across the Russian Federation, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and responding students from Ethiopia and Kenya reported receiving helpful information about looking after their emotional well-being, personal safety, healthy eating, and how to find people who can provide well-being advice. The percentages of responding students receiving helpful information on these topics in Burkina Faso, Denmark, and students in Slovenia were about one third or less. It seems that some schools and teachers adopted responsibilities beyond those related to teaching and learning. This might have been particularly important and helpful in the time of the pandemic. To round off the snapshot, school principals were asked if there were changes in their school’s use of certain support resources for students in comparison to before the disruption. The following response options were available “substantially increased,” “increased to some degree,” “did not change,” “decreased to some degree,” and “substantially decreased.” In the two parts of Table 4.5.11141 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 5. 7: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s a gr ee in g or st ro ng ly a gr ee in g w ith st at em en ts a bo ut th e su pp or t o ffe re d or g iv en to th em b y ot he rs d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up tio n (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee I f el t su p p o rt ed b y th e sc h o o l le ad er sh ip C o u n tr y I f el t su p p o rt ed b y m y co lle ag u es I f el t s up po rt ed b y th e ed uc at io n sy st em I f el t t ha t t he s et o f s up po rt m ec ha ni sm s of fe re d by m y sc ho ol w er e su ffi ci en t In d ia 8 5 (6 .5 ) 9 0 (4 .4 ) 8 1 (5 .2 ) 7 6 (4 .6 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 8 9 (1 .2 ) 9 1 (0 .8 ) 4 9 (2 .1 ) 7 5 (1 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g 8 7 (1 .6 ) 9 6 (0 .6 ) k 7 6 (1 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 8 8 (1 .1 ) 9 6 (0 .5 ) 9 0 (1 .5 ) 8 5 (1 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n 9 4 (0 .7 ) 9 6 (0 .5 ) 9 3 (0 .7 ) 8 9 (1 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 5 1 6 1 4 3 2 9 D en m ar kg ,i 8 9 9 5 4 1 7 9 E th io p ia i 6 9 5 6 6 3 5 4 K en ya i 7 0 7 6 7 1 5 1 U ru gu ay g 9 0 9 3 4 1 7 4142 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION I f el t su p p o rt ed b y m y so ci al n et w o rk o u ts id e o f s ch o o l C o u n tr y I f el t su p p o rt ed b y th e lo ca l c o m m u n it y I f el t I n ee d ed t o a sk fo r p ro fe ss io n al s u p p o rt o u ts id e o f m y sc h o o l Ta bl e 4. 5. 7: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts a bo ut th e su pp or t o ff er ed o r g iv en to th em b y ot he rs d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru pt io n (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . In d ia 8 5 (5 .1 ) 7 9 (5 .2 ) 7 1 (5 .8 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 9 1 (0 .8 ) 3 2 (2 .4 ) 4 6 (1 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 9 2 (0 .9 ) k 1 3 (1 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 8 9 (0 .9 ) 8 0 (1 .7 ) 3 6 (1 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n 9 2 (0 .6 ) 8 3 (0 .9 ) 5 4 (1 .8 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 7 0 3 5 4 3 D en m ar kg ,i 9 3 4 8 1 9 E th io p ia i 6 6 6 3 5 9 K en ya i 8 2 6 2 7 1 U ru gu ay g 9 5 k 3 5143 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 8: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at p ro vi de d di ff er en t t yp es o f s up po rt fo r s ch oo l s ta ff (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o Fo rm al s u p p o rt n et w o rk s su ch a s an e m p lo ye e as si st an ce p ro gr am m e P ee r su p p o rt s ys te m P ro fe ss io n al a ss o ci at io n lin ks a n d in fo rm at io n s u ch a s m en ta l h ea lt h s er vi ce s A cc es s to p hy si ca l a ct iv it y re so u rc es A cc o m m o d at io n s fo r te ac h er s w h o a re p ri m ar y ca re rs a n d h av e ch ild re n a t h o m e B u rk in a F as o 4 (2 .0 ) 5 (2 .2 ) 1 (1 .1 ) 1 (0 .5 ) 5 (2 .9 ) E th io p ia j 4 3 (5 .5 ) 5 4 (5 .7 ) 4 5 (4 .9 ) 4 0 (4 .7 ) 4 2 (4 .1 ) In d ia 5 3 (7 .5 ) 6 3 (6 .9 ) 4 8 (6 .2 ) 3 5 (8 .1 ) 4 9 (6 .8 ) K en ya g, j 3 6 (5 .4 ) 3 8 (5 .2 ) 9 (2 .9 ) 1 9 (5 .2 ) 2 0 (5 .7 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 2 7 (4 .2 ) 9 2 (2 .1 ) 5 2 (4 .9 ) 4 7 (5 .5 ) 4 1 (5 .5 ) R w an d a 4 7 (4 .7 ) 4 9 (4 .3 ) 1 9 (3 .4 ) 2 6 (3 .4 ) 3 7 (4 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 2 6 (4 .2 ) 5 4 (5 .3 ) 5 9 (5 .2 ) 5 4 (5 .9 ) 7 3 (5 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 6 (3 .6 ) 9 3 (2 .2 ) 7 5 (4 .6 ) 6 3 (4 .4 ) 6 8 (5 .3 ) U ru gu ay g, j 2 4 (4 .9 ) 6 0 (5 .5 ) 3 7 (5 .0 ) 3 7 (6 .6 ) 1 4 (3 .7 ) U zb ek is ta n j 8 6 (3 .5 ) 9 5 (2 .3 ) 2 9 (4 .3 ) 5 3 (5 .2 ) 7 3 (4 .6 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 2 4 n 7 5 n 3 9 n 2 9 n 1 6 n144 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 8: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at p ro vi de d di ff er en t t yp es o f s up po rt fo r s ch oo l s ta ff (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o A cc es s to n u tr it io n al in fo rm at io n a n d su p p o rt C o u n tr y O n lin e w el l- b ei n g m an ag em en t p ro gr am m es a n d r es o u rc es In fo rm al /s oc ia l e ve nt s su ch a s bo ok c lu b Tr ai ni ng in th e su pp or t o f s oc ia l a nd em ot io na l h ea lt h of o th er s B u rk in a F as o 6 (2 .3 ) 1 3 (3 .8 ) 4 (1 .8 ) 5 (2 .1 ) E th io p ia j 4 1 (4 .5 ) 1 5 (3 .4 ) 3 6 (3 .9 ) 4 9 (5 .3 ) In d ia 5 8 (6 .8 ) 5 2 (9 .1 ) 3 4 (7 .8 ) 5 2 (8 .0 ) K en ya g, j 2 5 (5 .6 ) 3 0 (5 .6 ) 8 (2 .9 ) 2 5 (6 .0 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 4 0 (5 .2 ) 3 5 (4 .9 ) 9 (2 .7 ) 2 1 (3 .5 ) R w an d a 2 9 (3 .5 ) 4 6 (3 .8 ) 2 5 (3 .6 ) 3 5 (3 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 3 8 (6 .2 ) 4 9 (5 .3 ) 4 0 (5 .7 ) 3 1 (5 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 6 0 (5 .4 ) 9 3 (2 .6 ) 6 5 (5 .2 ) 8 4 (3 .2 ) U ru gu ay g, j 1 5 (4 .0 ) 5 6 (5 .6 ) 2 9 (5 .1 ) 3 4 (7 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n j 6 4 (4 .9 ) 8 2 (4 .5 ) 5 3 (5 .6 ) 8 7 (3 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 8 n 1 4 n 4 2 n 1 0 n145 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. e D ue to a n ad ap ta ti on e rr or d at a ca nn ot b e re po rt ed . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 5. 9: T ea ch er s p ro vi di ng su pp or t t o st ud en ts a nd th ei r f am ili es d ur in g th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on to s om e or to a la rg e ex te nt R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) T o a la rg e ex te nt (2 ) T o so m e ex te nt (3 ) T o a sm al l e xt en t a nd (4 ) N ot a t a ll P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s n o t te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y O u t o f t h e te ac h er s te ac h in g th ei r cl as s re m o te ly d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n : P er ce n ta ge o f t ea ch er s p ro vi d in g su p p o rt o r in fo rm at io n a b o u t th e fo llo w in g to p ic s to s o m e o r to a la rg e ex te n t E m o ti o n al w el l- b ei n g H ea lt h (i n cl u d in g in fo rm at io n a b o u t th e C O V ID -1 9 p an d em ic ) N ut ri ti on A cc es s to w el fa re ag en ci es In d ia 2 9 (7 .2 ) 7 6 (8 .3 ) 8 9 (2 .8 ) 8 4 (3 .0 ) 6 1 (8 .0 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 1 (0 .3 ) 7 3 (1 .3 ) 7 3 (1 .6 ) 4 5 (2 .0 ) 4 9 (1 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 (0 .5 ) 8 0 (1 .5 ) 7 5 (1 .5 ) 4 3 (1 .9 ) 4 5 (1 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 (0 .7 ) 8 1 (2 .2 ) 8 3 (2 .3 ) 7 0 (1 .6 ) 4 4 (1 .4 ) U zb ek is ta n 2 (0 .3 ) 8 4 (1 .1 ) 9 2 (0 .7 ) 8 1 (1 .2 ) 4 7 (1 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 6 7 6 8 7 6 5 2 9 D en m ar kg ,i 6 6 5 4 0 1 4 6 E th io p ia i 6 1 6 2 7 6 6 8 5 5 K en ya i e e e e e U ru gu ay g 1 5 1 4 6 2 1 k146 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 10 : P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s w ho re ce iv ed h el pf ul in fo rm at io n on se le ct ed to pi cs fr om th ei r s ch oo l o r t ea ch er s ( pa rt 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd it w as h el pf ul (2 ) Y es b ut it w as n ot h el pf ul a nd (3 ) N o Lo o ki n g af te r m y em o ti o n al w el l- b ei n g C o u n tr y Lo o ki n g af te r m y p er so n al s af et y H ea lt hy e at in g H ow to fi nd p eo pl e w ho c an pr ov id e w el l- be in g ad vi ce R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 4 1 (1 .4 ) 5 4 (1 .5 ) 4 2 (1 .5 ) 4 4 (1 .3 ) Sl ov en ia g 2 7 (1 .2 ) 3 2 (1 .1 ) 3 0 (1 .5 ) 3 0 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 5 6 (1 .3 ) 7 5 (1 .1 ) 6 9 (1 .6 ) 5 9 (1 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n h 8 0 (1 .0 ) 7 7 (1 .1 ) 8 2 (1 .1 ) 6 4 (1 .5 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 1 9 3 2 3 0 2 5 D en m ar k 2 4 n 1 7 n 1 8 n 2 1 n E th io p ia h 4 7 6 6 6 2 5 2 K en ya h 3 7 4 9 4 6 4 0147 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 5. 10 : P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s w ho re ce iv ed h el pf ul in fo rm at io n on se le ct ed to pi cs fr om th ei r s ch oo l o r t ea ch er s ( pa rt 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd it w as h el pf ul (2 ) Y es b ut it w as n ot h el pf ul a nd (3 ) N o H ea lt h a d vi ce a b o u t C O V ID -1 9 C o u n tr y H ea lt hy w o rk in g h ab it s M ai n ta in in g p hy si ca l fi tn es s R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 7 3 (1 .2 ) 5 7 (1 .0 ) 4 9 (1 .2 ) Sl ov en ia g 4 4 (1 .3 ) 4 3 (1 .1 ) 4 7 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 8 4 (1 .2 ) 7 1 (1 .2 ) 7 1 (1 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n h 8 4 (1 .0 ) 7 9 (1 .2 ) 8 5 (1 .1 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 4 5 2 6 2 6 D en m ar k 3 4 n 4 2 n 3 6 n E th io p ia h 6 1 5 2 5 8 K en ya h 5 8 4 2 4 1148 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION the percentages of schools reporting an increase in the specific use of different support resources are presented. The largest increase across countries can be observed for social and emotional support and telephone counselling sessions. Across the countries, many principals reported on the increased use of information sheets about coping with stress and support from counselors and guidance officers. The least used resource across countries were home visits by teachers or specialist school staff. Except for India (46%), less than a third of the principals reported increases for this activity, likely due to the recommended distance measures to minimize infection risks. A lower increase in various support resources was observed in Burkina Faso and the largest in Uzbekistan.149 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . Ta bl e 4. 5. 11 : P er ce nt ag es o f p ri nc ip al s r ep or ti ng a n in cr ea se in th ei r s ch oo l’s u se o f d iff er en t s up po rt re so ur ce s f or st ud en ts in c om pa ri so n w it h th e ti m e be fo re th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed Li n ks t o m en ta l h ea lt h s u p p o rt C o u n tr y In fo rm at io n s h ee ts a b o u t co p in g w it h c h an ge /s tr es s/ is o la ti o n W or k w it h lo ca l s up po rt a ge nc ie s to m ee t b as ic n ee ds o f s tu de nt s So ci al a nd e m ot io na l s up po rt B u rk in a F as o 8 (2 .8 ) 1 6 (3 .3 ) 6 (1 .9 ) 1 4 (3 .5 ) E th io p ia j 4 7 (4 .7 ) 5 7 (4 .6 ) 2 6 (4 .6 ) 5 1 (4 .7 ) In d ia 4 6 (5 .9 ) 4 4 (4 .5 ) 5 1 (5 .7 ) 5 2 (5 .2 ) K en ya g, j 2 5 (5 .4 ) 3 5 (5 .7 ) 2 9 (5 .0 ) 3 3 (6 .0 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 3 6 (4 .1 ) 7 6 (4 .3 ) 8 3 (3 .9 ) 8 6 (4 .0 ) R w an d a 3 4 (3 .8 ) 4 5 (4 .0 ) 4 1 (4 .1 ) 5 1 (4 .0 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 4 2 (3 .9 ) 6 3 (5 .1 ) 8 7 (3 .9 ) 6 9 (4 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 6 4 (5 .5 ) 7 1 (4 .2 ) 9 6 (1 .9 ) 8 7 (5 .3 ) U ru gu ay g, j 2 9 (6 .7 ) 4 6 (6 .7 ) 5 1 (4 .9 ) 7 5 (4 .4 ) U zb ek is ta n j 7 4 (4 .9 ) 7 6 (4 .9 ) 8 5 (4 .7 ) 8 5 (3 .9 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 1 5 1 9 2 9 3 5150 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. C o u n se lo rs a n d g u id an ce o ffi ce rs C o u n tr y H om e vi si ts b y te ac he rs o r sp ec ia lis t s ch oo l s ta ff Te le p h o n e co u n se lli n g se ss io n s Ta bl e 4. 5. 11 : P er ce nt ag es o f p ri nc ip al s r ep or ti ng a n in cr ea se in th ei r s ch oo l’s u se o f d iff er en t s up po rt re so ur ce s f or st ud en ts in c om pa ri so n w it h th e ti m e be fo re th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed B u rk in a F as o 1 0 (2 .9 ) 5 (1 .6 ) 1 8 (3 .7 ) E th io p ia j 4 4 (4 .9 ) 3 0 (5 .1 ) 3 3 (3 .7 ) In d ia 4 4 (5 .1 ) 4 6 (7 .0 ) 5 6 (5 .1 ) K en ya g, j 3 7 (6 .3 ) 9 (3 .1 ) 7 (2 .5 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 6 2 (5 .3 ) 2 1 (5 .2 ) 9 7 (1 .3 ) R w an d a 3 6 (3 .8 ) 3 1 (3 .3 ) 5 0 (4 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 8 2 (5 .1 ) 1 0 (2 .9 ) 8 8 (3 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 2 (6 .3 ) 1 2 (3 .9 ) 7 7 (5 .1 ) U ru gu ay g, j 6 0 (5 .4 ) 2 8 (5 .1 ) 7 9 (3 .7 ) U zb ek is ta n j 7 6 (5 .0 ) 3 1 (4 .5 ) 9 3 (3 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 1 9 n 2 7 n 6 5 n151 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Section 4.6 Transitioning students back to school Minge Chen, Alec I. Kennedy, Sabine Meinck, Mojca Rožman Section highlights As students return to schools for face-to-face instruction, it is imperative for teachers and principals to pay close attention to the academic, social, and mental needs of their students to support their long-term development and growth. This section describes the experiences of students as they made their transition back to school after the initial round of school closures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It also describes the methods that schools implemented to facilitate the transition of students back to regular lessons, as reported by teachers and principals. Students were generally excited to return to school but had to adjust to several changes. • In most countries, the majority of students reported that they returned to school more motivated and were excited to see and catch up with friends. • Half or more students reported that it was difficult to manage the new health-related measures at their school. • Over half of students across all countries reported their classes rushed through new materials, while also reviewing work that was done during the disruption. • In several countries, most teachers reported that students found it difficult to re-adjust to the classroom setting. Many schools assessed for and addressed diminished progress in learning after students returned to school. • In almost all countries, most teachers reported that student learning had not progressed as expected and that students were less focused and efficient in the classroom. • Upon return, the majority of teachers and principals reported that they assessed student learning progress both during and following the COVID-19 disruption and, in many countries, provided targeted teaching. Many schools assessed and supported student well-being as they returned to school. • In most countries, most students reported they were asked about their well-being and were reminded about available counseling services. • In almost all countries, teachers and principals reported that numerous resources were provided to students and families regarding aspects of their well-being.152 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Introduction School closures can have several adverse consequences on students and their communities (UNESCO, 2020). The loss of learning opportunities as a result of school closures, and the transition to remote learning can potentially have both immediate and long-term negative impacts on student development and growth (Kuhfeld et al., 2020; World Bank, 2020; Lewis et al., 2021). Furthermore, to many students and families, schools are an important resource for socializing, food, and childcare and the removal of such an important resource may have long-term negative impacts on student well-being (Vinson & Naftzger, 2021; Taylor et al., 2017). To mitigate the long- term consequences of school closures, it is vital that schools pay close attention to these particular student needs as they reopen from extended shutdowns. This section examines the perspectives of students, teachers, and principals on the transition back to school after the disruption and how schools supported student learning and well-being during this time. This section addresses the research question: What did schools do to support students’ return to regular schooling? Students’ feelings about transitioning back to regular lessons Students were asked about their experiences as they returned to school after the COVID-19 disruption to their schooling. Specifically, they were asked about their motivation to learn, their learning progress, and their attitudes toward the modified face-to-face learning environment. Students reported on their experiences via four response categories (“strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree”). Table 4.6.1 reports the share of students responding either that they “agree” or “strongly agree.” In general, the majority of students had a positive attitude toward going back to school. Students reported that they were more motivated to learn and excited to catch up with friends. In all countries, most students and student respondents agreed that they felt safe at school. Furthermore, students and student respondents tended to notice that classmates were friendlier, and that teachers seemed more caring towards them compared to before the COVID-19 disruption. Slovenia was an exception to this last pattern, as less than half of students agreed that their classmates were friendlier (40%) and that their teachers seemed more caring (42%). Similarly, in Denmark, an even smaller portion of student respondents indicated that their classmates were friendlier (33%) and that their teachers seemed more caring than before (33%). As a highlight, more than four out of five Uzbek students agreed to these statements (see Table 4.6.1 part 1). A relatively smaller portion of students reported negative attitudes towards the adjustments they had to make upon returning to school. The percentages of students that were worried about catching COVID-19 at school varied greatly across countries. The share of students and student respondents concerned about the risks of catching COVID-19 at school ranged from one in three (Slovenia and Denmark) to four out of five (Burkina Faso and Kenya). These patterns are aligned with the concerns of teachers (see Table 4.5.5) and may be related to infection protocols implemented in schools, general infection risks in countries, or other objective and subjective factors that are not necessarily school-related. Between about half (Russian Federation) and four out of five (Burkina Faso) students or student respondents found it hard to manage the COVID-19 routines at school (e.g., wearing a mask, keeping distance to others, etc.). One third to about half of the students or student respondents found it hard to concentrate during class time, and half to two thirds stated they had to complete more assessments than usual (see Table 4.6.1 part 2). Teachers also shared their perspectives on students’ transition back to the classroom. Specific statements about students were presented to them, and responses were collected via four response categories (“strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree”). Table 4.6.2 reports the share of teachers responding either that they “agree” or “strongly agree.” Varying percentages of teachers and teacher respondents reported that their students had difficulties in effectively interacting with their classmates, readjusting to the classroom setting, and seemed to be more anxious than they were before the COVID-19 disruption, with very similar patterns across items within countries. For example, in India and Kenya, at least 80% of teachers or teacher respondents, respectively, agreed with these statements, while this held true in many other countries for around 50-60% of teachers or teacher respondents. Denmark stood out as an outlier153 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 6. 1: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts a bo ut th ei r e xp er ie nc es re tu rn in g to s ch oo l a ft er th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru pt io n (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee I w as m o re m o ti va te d t o le ar n w h en s ch o o l r eo p en ed th an a t an y o th er t im e I w as e xc it ed t o c at ch u p w it h fr ie n d s M y te ac h er s se em ed m o re ca ri n g to w ar d m e th an th ey w er e b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n I f el t sa fe a t sc h o o l M y cl as sm at es w er e fr ie n d lie r th an b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 5 7 (1 .1 ) 8 6 (0 .7 ) 5 2 (1 .2 ) 4 7 (1 .3 ) 5 7 (1 .2 ) Sl ov en ia g 4 5 (1 .4 ) 7 2 (0 .9 ) 4 0 (1 .2 ) 4 2 (1 .4 ) 5 5 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 6 (1 .0 ) 8 4 (0 .9 ) 5 6 (0 .9 ) 6 3 (1 .4 ) 6 6 (1 .4 ) U zb ek is ta n h 9 6 (0 .4 ) 8 9 (0 .8 ) 8 8 (0 .6 ) 8 1 (0 .8 ) 7 6 (1 .2 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 4 9 6 6 9 7 5 5 3 D en m ar k 6 1 n 8 9 n 3 3 n 3 3 n 7 2 n E th io p ia h 8 6 7 9 6 6 6 5 7 0 K en ya h 8 5 8 1 5 6 7 7 6 8154 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. I w o rr ie d a lo t ab o u t ca tc h in g C O V ID -1 9 a t sc h o o l C o u n tr y I f o u n d it h ar d t o m an ag e th e C O V ID -1 9 r o u ti n es a t sc h o o l (e .g . w ea ri n g a m as k, k ee p in g d is ta n ce t o o th er s) I f ou nd it h ar d to c on ce nt ra te du ri ng c la ss ti m e I h ad to c om pl et e m or e as se ss m en ts th an u su al Ta bl e 4. 6. 1: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts a bo ut th ei r e xp er ie nc es re tu rn in g to s ch oo l a ft er th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru pt io n (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 4 3 (1 .0 ) 4 4 (1 .4 ) 3 6 (1 .1 ) 4 4 (1 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 3 3 (1 .3 ) 5 5 (1 .2 ) 5 0 (1 .1 ) 5 8 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 0 (1 .1 ) 5 6 (1 .1 ) 5 1 (1 .4 ) 6 0 (1 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n h 6 9 (1 .3 ) 5 6 (1 .4 ) 3 6 (1 .2 ) 5 6 (1 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 7 8 0 5 5 4 8 D en m ar k 3 5 n 6 3 n 5 0 n 4 6 n E th io p ia h 7 4 6 4 5 6 6 5 K en ya h 8 3 7 5 4 8 7 1155 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g Lo w p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. St u d en ts d id n o t in te ra ct a s ef fe ct iv el y w it h t h ei r cl as sm at es as t h ey d id b ef o re t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y St u d en ts fo u n d it d if fi cu lt t o re -a d ju st t o t h e cl as sr o o m s et ti n g St ud en ts s ee m ed to b e m or e an xi ou s th an th ey w er e be fo re th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru pt io n St ud en ts s ee m ed p le as ed to b e ba ck in th ei r cl as sr oo m s Ta bl e 4. 6. 2: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s a gr ee in g or st ro ng ly a gr ee in g w it h st at em en ts w it h re sp ec t t o th ei r c la ss w he n th ey re tu rn ed to re gu la r l es so ns a t s ch oo l a ft er th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee In d ia 8 4 (3 .3 ) 8 2 (3 .6 ) 8 2 (3 .8 ) 8 8 (3 .5 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 5 3 (2 .0 ) 6 1 (1 .9 ) 4 8 (2 .2 ) 9 5 (0 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 5 3 (1 .7 ) 5 4 (2 .0 ) 3 8 (2 .1 ) 9 4 (0 .7 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 5 7 (2 .1 ) 4 7 (2 .6 ) 6 0 (1 .2 ) 8 7 (0 .7 ) U zb ek is ta n 5 2 (1 .7 ) 6 0 (1 .7 ) 5 5 (1 .6 ) 9 1 (0 .7 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 6 3 6 0 5 9 7 2 D en m ar kg ,i 2 5 4 2 1 6 n 9 7 n E th io p ia i 6 1 7 1 6 0 7 2 K en ya i 8 5 8 7 8 0 8 9 U ru gu ay g 5 7 4 4 6 3 9 3156 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION as fewer teacher respondents agreed with these statements (25%, 42%, and 16%, respectively). Importantly, three quarters or more teachers and teacher respondents reported that students seemed pleased to be back in the classrooms across the participating countries. Support for students’ learning after their return to school As students returned to regular lessons, teachers and schools may have adjusted classroom activities to address diminished learning progress. Students were asked whether they agree with the respective statements regarding their classroom activities. Students reported on their experiences via four response categories (“strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree”). Table 4.6.3 reports the percentages of students who “strongly agree” or “agree.” The majority of students reported that teachers spent time reviewing the material that was covered during the COVID-19 disruption, with lower agreement levels from respondents in Burkina Faso, Denmark, Ethiopia, and Kenya. However, more than half of the students and student respondents across all countries also reported that they rushed through a lot of the new schoolwork. Further, it was noted by a smaller proportion of students and student respondents (about 40-60%) that their classroom was less well-behaved than before the COVID-19 disruption. Students from Denmark (26%), the Russian Federation (34%) and Uzbekistan (38%) reported less well- behaved classrooms. The provision of extra tuition is perceived as an important measure to make up for diminished learning progress during the school closures. REDS provides evidence that this measure was implemented frequently. Specifically, more than half of student in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and even larger shares of students, or student respondents, in Kenya and Uzbekistan reported using such measures. Fewer student respondents in Burkina Faso (14%), Denmark (23%), and Ethiopia (44%) reported having extra tuition available to them to assist in catching up on schoolwork. Teachers were asked to share their observations and opinions related to their students’ learning, engagement, and motivation when they returned to the classroom. Specific statements were presented to them, and responses were collected via four response categories (“strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree”). Table 4.6.4 reports the share of teachers that were in agreement. A majority of teachers and teacher respondents were concerned about their students’ learning progress due to the impact of the COVID-19 disruption, agreeing that they had not advanced to the extent that they would normally have expected at the particular time of the year. In addition, half or more of teachers and teacher respondents in all countries tended to agree that students were less engaged, less focused, and less efficient in class compared to how they were before the COVID-19 disruption. One clear exception is Denmark, where only 34% of teacher respondents reported that students were less engaged, 36% reported that students were less focused, and 41% reported that students worked more slowly on tasks than they did before the COVID-19 disruption. Also, teachers in the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay agreed to these statements to a lesser extent than teachers in other countries. Teachers were further asked to what extent they made extra effort to assess and address diminished learning progress of students. Teachers reported using three response categories (“yes, to a large extent,” “yes, to some extent,” and “no”). Table 4.6.5 reports the percentages of teachers responding that they did implement the specific method at least to some extent. Almost all teachers and teacher respondents reported that they had assessed their students’ academic achievement following the COVID-19 disruption, with some lower percentages from respondents in Denmark and Burkina Faso (63%). After assessing student learning during the disruption, most teachers and teacher respondents reported doing targeted teaching directed towards learning areas where student achievement had not progressed to the desired extent or to students whose progress during the COVID-19 disruption was less than would have been expected. Burkina Faso was an exception, where a relatively smaller portion of teacher respondents (57% and 47%, respectively) responded that they had implemented targeted teaching towards either group of students. Like teachers, principals were also asked whether they implemented specific methods to assess and address student diminished learning progress. Principals answered the questions by choosing one of two response categories (“yes” or “no”). Table 4.6.6 reports the share of principals affirming157 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. M y te ac h er s w en t ov er t h e w o rk w e d id d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y W e ru sh ed t h ro u gh a lo t o f n ew sc h o o lw o rk M y cl as s w as le ss w el l- be ha ve d th an b ef or e th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on E xt ra tu it io n w as a va ila bl e to ca tc h up o n sc ho ol w or k Ta bl e 4. 6. 3: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts a bo ut th ei r s ch oo l a nd c la ss ro om e xp er ie nc es a ft er th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 8 0 (1 .1 ) 6 1 (0 .9 ) 3 4 (1 .2 ) 5 5 (1 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 8 4 (1 .0 ) 6 4 (1 .0 ) 4 7 (1 .1 ) 6 6 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 8 3 (1 .1 ) 6 1 (1 .7 ) 4 3 (1 .2 ) 5 9 (1 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n h 9 1 (1 .2 ) 8 6 (0 .8 ) 3 8 (1 .3 ) 8 3 (1 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 6 3 5 3 4 4 1 4 D en m ar k 5 9 n 5 1 n 2 6 n 2 3 n E th io p ia h 5 3 5 9 5 5 4 4 K en ya h 5 8 7 5 6 1 7 1158 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. St u d en ts h ad n o t p ro gr es se d t o t h e ex te n t th at I w o u ld h av e n o rm al ly ex p ec te d a t th is t im e o f y ea r C o u n tr y St u d en ts w er e n o t as e n ga ge d in sc h o o lw o rk a s th ey w er e b ef o re th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n St ud en ts fo un d it d if fi cu lt to fo cu s on ta sk s th at th ey w er e as si gn ed St ud en ts w or ke d m or e sl ow ly o n ta sk s th an th ey d id p ri or to th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru pt io n Ta bl e 4. 6. 4: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s a gr ee in g or st ro ng ly a gr ee in g w it h st at em en ts w it h re sp ec t t o th ei r c la ss ro om e nv iro nm en t w he n th ey re tu rn ed to re gu la r l es so ns a t s ch oo l af te r t he C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee In d ia 9 3 (1 .5 ) 9 0 (2 .6 ) 8 5 (4 .6 ) 8 0 (4 .4 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 8 1 (1 .5 ) 7 3 (2 .0 ) 7 4 (2 .0 ) 7 0 (2 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 8 7 (1 .1 ) 7 9 (1 .8 ) 7 7 (2 .0 ) 7 1 (1 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 5 2 (1 .6 ) 4 9 (1 .8 ) 4 4 (2 .0 ) 5 3 (2 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n 8 0 (1 .3 ) 6 0 (2 .0 ) 6 8 (1 .6 ) 7 0 (1 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 3 7 6 8 1 6 4 D en m ar kg ,i 7 2 n 3 4 n 3 6 4 1 n E th io p ia i 6 5 5 8 7 1 6 5 K en ya i 9 3 8 8 8 8 8 7 U ru gu ay g 8 0 4 8 5 5 5 4159 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . Ta bl e 4. 6. 5: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s u si ng m et ho ds to fa ci lit at e st ud en ts ' l ea rn in g af te r t he ir re tu rn to sc ho ol to a la rg e or so m e ex te nt R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es , t o a la rg e ex te nt (2 ) Y es , t o so m e ex te nt a nd (3 ) N o A ss es sm en ts o f s tu d en ts ’ a ch ie ve m en ts fo llo w in g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y Ta rg et ed t ea ch in g d ir ec te d t o le ar n in g ar ea s w h er e st u d en t ac h ie ve m en t h ad n o t p ro gr es se d t o t h e d es ir ed e xt en t Ta rg et ed t ea ch in g d ir ec te d t o s tu d en ts w h o se p ro gr es s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n w as le ss t h an w o u ld h av e b ee n ex p ec te d In d ia 8 4 (6 .8 ) 8 2 (7 .2 ) 8 4 (7 .2 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 9 8 (0 .4 ) 9 5 (0 .7 ) 9 5 (0 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 9 6 (0 .6 ) 9 2 (1 .2 ) 8 9 (1 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 4 (0 .7 ) 8 9 (0 .9 ) 8 7 (0 .9 ) U zb ek is ta n 9 8 (0 .4 ) 9 6 (0 .6 ) 9 6 (0 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 6 3 5 7 4 7 D en m ar kg ,i 6 3 8 1 7 1 E th io p ia i 8 2 7 6 8 0 K en ya i 8 3 8 9 9 0 U ru gu ay g 9 4 9 3 9 5160 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION the statement (“yes”). Consistent with the responses from teachers, the majority of principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) reported that their schools had assessed their students’ academic performance following the COVID-19 disruption and that targeted teaching was directed towards learning areas where student achievement had not progressed to the desired extent or whose progress during the COVID-19 disruption was less than would have been expected (see Table 4.6.6 part 1). In addition, principals were also asked whether additional efforts were made to help students make up for any learning interrupted by the disruption. More than half of the principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) reported that their schools had reviewed student progression to the next level in school, especially in the Russian Federation (98%), Slovenia (97%), and the United Arab Emirates (92%). A relatively smaller percentage of principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) reported that their schools provided supplementary staff or tutoring (either within or outside of school) to help students catch up. Ethiopia and Uzbekistan were two exceptions to this pattern. In contrast to other countries, significantly more principals in Ethiopia (72%) and Uzbekistan (79%) reported that their schools did provide supplementary staff or tutoring to assist in classes where students were judged to require additional support. Furthermore, in Uzbekistan, 80% of principals reported that their schools had partnered with external educational services (e.g., tutoring) to help students catch-up. More than half of the principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) in most countries, reported that remote teaching was adopted to supplement face- to-face teaching. However, in Burkina Faso (11%), Kenya (34%), the Russian Federation (28%), and Slovenia (29%), fewer principals noted that this was the case (see Table 4.6.6 part 2). Supporting students’ well-being after their return to regular schooling Student well-being was another concern as schools transitioned back to regular lessons. Students were asked if they understood the changes made to the arrangements in the school and about their experiences with the non-academic services that their school provides (i.e., school counseling and food services). Students were asked whether they agree with the respective statements by choosing the following response categories “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Table 4.6.7 reports the percentages of students who “strongly agree” or “agree.” Overall, most students and student respondents understood the changed arrangements in their school. Furthermore, while many students and student respondents reported that they were asked about their well-being by school staff (other than their teacher) and/or were reminded about the availability of school counselors and support officers at their schools, this was the most prevalent in Uzbekistan where at least four out of five students agreed that this was the case (86% and 80%, respectively). Finally, a relatively smaller portion of students and student respondents agreed that accessing free lunch and/or breakfast was easier than before the COVID-19 disruption. Teachers were asked to what extent they made extra effort to assess and address student well- being upon their return to school. Teachers reported using three response categories (“yes, to a large extent,” “yes, to some extent,” and “no”). Table 4.6.8 reports the percentages of teachers responding that they did implement the specific method at least to some extent. Overall, teachers invested additional time to assess and support their students’ well-being. The large majority of teachers and teacher respondents reported spending time talking with students about their well-being. After assessing student well-being, a smaller proportion, but still more than half, of teachers and teacher respondents reported referring some students to well-being support within or outside of school. However, it is noted that in Burkina Faso, Denmark, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates only about a third or fewer teachers (or teacher respondents, in Burkina Faso and Denmark) reported referring some students to agencies outside the school. These low reports do not necessarily reflect a worrisome finding as, in some of these countries, schools may be the primary provider of well-being support to students, and as a policy, might not refer students to services outside the school if they are even available. Like teachers, principals were also asked whether their schools provided support for students’ social and emotional well-being to facilitate regular (face-to-face) teaching. Principals reported using two response categories (“yes” or “no”). The percentages of principals confirming they161 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g Lo w p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 6. 6: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls u si ng m et ho ds to su pp or t s tu de nt s' le ar ni ng a ft er th ei r r et ur n to sc ho ol (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o A ss es sm en ts o f s tu d en ts ’ a ch ie ve m en t fo llo w in g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n C o u n tr y Ta rg et ed t ea ch in g d ir ec te d t o le ar n in g ar ea s w h er e st u d en t ac h ie ve m en t h ad n o t p ro gr es se d t o t h e d es ir ed e xt en t Ta rg et ed t ea ch in g d ir ec te d t o s tu d en ts w h o se p ro gr es s d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n w as le ss t h an w o u ld h av e b ee n ex p ec te d B u rk in a F as o 4 5 (6 .2 ) 4 2 (5 .3 ) 2 9 (5 .1 ) E th io p ia j 6 4 (4 .9 ) 5 1 (4 .0 ) 6 6 (5 .1 ) In d ia 8 0 (7 .0 ) 7 4 (7 .3 ) 7 5 (7 .0 ) K en ya g, j 6 7 (6 .3 ) 6 6 (5 .7 ) 6 6 (5 .5 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 9 9 (0 .6 ) 9 5 (2 .4 ) 8 6 (3 .7 ) R w an d a 7 6 (3 .7 ) 7 3 (3 .9 ) 7 4 (3 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 9 9 (1 .0 ) 9 6 (2 .0 ) 9 4 (2 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 6 (0 .9 ) 8 8 (2 .5 ) 9 1 (2 .2 ) U ru gu ay g, j 9 8 (0 .9 ) 8 8 (4 .5 ) 9 6 (2 .3 ) U zb ek is ta n j 9 6 (3 .0 ) 8 8 (4 .3 ) 9 2 (3 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 4 4 n 5 3 n 6 1 n162 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. P ro vi si o n o f s u p p le m en ta ry s ta ff o r tu to ri n g to a ss is t in c la ss es w h er e st u d en ts w er e ju d ge d t o r eq u ir e ad d it io n al s u p p o rt C o u n tr y R ev ie w s o f s tu d en t p ro gr es si o n to t h e n ex t le ve l o f s ch o o l Su pp le m en ti ng fa ce -t o- fa ce te ac hi ng w it h re m ot e te ac hi ng P ar tn er w it h ex te rn al e du ca ti on al se rv ic es s uc h as tu to ri ng s er vi ce s to he lp s tu de nt s ca tc h- up Ta bl e 4. 6. 6: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls u si ng m et ho ds to su pp or t s tu de nt s' le ar ni ng a ft er th ei r r et ur n to sc ho ol (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o B u rk in a F as o 3 4 (5 .6 ) 6 4 (5 .4 ) 1 1 (3 .9 ) 2 9 (5 .5 ) E th io p ia j 7 2 (4 .3 ) 7 2 (3 .9 ) 4 6 (4 .3 ) 6 4 (4 .7 ) In d ia 4 1 (8 .6 ) 7 3 (8 .3 ) 6 0 (9 .5 ) 5 6 (7 .8 ) K en ya g, j 4 5 (5 .7 ) 6 2 (5 .4 ) 3 4 (5 .8 ) 3 9 (6 .0 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 1 3 (3 .7 ) 9 8 (1 .8 ) 2 8 (4 .4 ) 1 3 (3 .5 ) R w an d a 6 3 (4 .2 ) 7 0 (3 .7 ) 4 8 (4 .4 ) 6 4 (3 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 3 4 (4 .8 ) 9 7 (1 .7 ) 2 9 (4 .2 ) 1 6 (4 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 5 4 (5 .9 ) 9 2 (1 .6 ) 8 5 (3 .2 ) 3 1 (4 .7 ) U ru gu ay g, j 6 2 (6 .1 ) 7 3 (7 .4 ) 7 5 (6 .5 ) 2 1 (5 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n j 7 9 (4 .7 ) 5 8 (5 .1 ) 7 0 (5 .1 ) 8 0 (4 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 3 9 n 4 1 n 4 6 n 1 7 n163 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. I u n d er st o o d t h e ch an ge d ar ra n ge m en ts in m y sc h o o l C o u n tr y St af f f ro m m y sc h o o l o th er t h an m y te ac h er c am e to m y cl as s to as k ab o u t o u r w el l- b ei n g W e w er e re m in de d th at s ch oo l co un se lo rs a nd s up po rt o ffi ce rs w er e av ai la bl e fo r in di vi du al ap po in tm en ts It w as e as ie r fo r m e to a cc es s fr ee lu nc he s an d/ or b re ak fa st th an b ef or e th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on Ta bl e 4. 6. 7: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s ag re ei ng o r s tr on gl y ag re ei ng w it h st at em en ts a bo ut th ei r s ch oo l e xp er ie nc es a ft er th e C O V ID -1 9 di sr up ti on R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S tr on gl y ag re e (2 ) A gr ee (3 ) D is ag re e an d (4 ) S tr on gl y di sa gr ee R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 8 6 (0 .8 ) 4 8 (1 .7 ) 4 5 (1 .7 ) 2 4 (1 .2 ) Sl ov en ia g 9 1 (0 .6 ) 4 5 (1 .1 ) 5 2 (1 .0 ) 3 6 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 0 (0 .6 ) 5 5 (1 .5 ) 6 6 (1 .1 ) 5 4 (0 .9 ) U zb ek is ta n h 9 4 (0 .5 ) 8 6 (0 .8 ) 8 0 (1 .1 ) k D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 8 8 6 8 3 9 1 3 D en m ar k 8 9 n 2 8 n 3 3 n 1 7 n E th io p ia h 7 7 5 0 5 4 4 2 K en ya h 8 8 6 2 6 3 4 1164 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION made a specific provision are presented in Table 4.6.9. The majority of principals (or principal respondents, in Denmark) reported that their schools had set up additional tools to monitor students’ health and safety, especially in the United Arab Emirates (96%) and Uzbekistan (97%). Also, the majority of principals (or principal respondents, in Denmark) across most of the countries reported that their schools had developed and implemented additional social or emotional learning interventions, implemented student behavioural interventions, and provided activities through which students needed to cooperate with each other. Burkina Faso was one exception to this pattern, where less than half of the principals reported that their schools implemented such strategies (see Table 4.6.9 part 1). Approximately half of principals, or in some cases more, responded that their schools offered specific support for family well-being (e.g., counseling services, food programmes, contacting outside agencies to assist families who need help, etc.). However, there were some exceptions. In Burkina Faso and Denmark, only a small share of principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) reported that their schools offered additional support for families regarding student well-being or reported that their schools organized for other agencies to provide counselling services for families where it was thought to be needed. In Burkina Faso (7%), Denmark (13%), Ethiopia (20%), and Uruguay (32%), fewer principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) reported that their schools provided nutrition for students (e.g., through lunch programmes). It was also true in Denmark (2%), Burkina Faso (7%), Kenya (24%), Ethiopia (32%), and the Russian Federation (32%), that fewer principals (or principal respondents in Denmark) contacted agencies that provide food and other essentials to assist families who required help. Several countries were very active in providing support for families. For example, a large majority of principals (greater than 80%) in the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Uruguay mentioned offering additional support to families regarding student well-being. Four out of five principals in Uzbekistan noted that they organized for other agencies to provide counseling for families. The Russian Federation and Rwanda had over 80% of principals respond that they provided nutrition to students through lunch programmes (see Table 4.6.9 part 2). References Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 549-565. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20965918 Lewis, K., Kuhfeld, M., Ruzek, E., & McEachin, A. (2021). Learning during COVID-19: Reading and math achievement in the 2020-21 school year. Center for School and Student Progress, NWEA Research https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2021/07/Learning-during-COVID-19-Reading-and-math- achievement-in-the-2020-2021-school-year.research-brief-1.pdf Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child development, 88(4), 1156-1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864 UNESCO. (2020). Adverse consequences of school closures. UNESCO. Retrieved September 16, 2021, from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/consequences Vinson, M. & Naftzger, N. (2021). Social-emotional supports for students during COVID-19. American Institute of Research. Retrieved September 16, 2021, from https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/ Social-Emotional-Supports-for-Students-During-COVID-19-Feb-2021.pdf World Bank. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Shocks to education and policy responses. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33696165 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . Ta bl e 4. 6. 8: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s u si ng m et ho ds to su pp or t s tu de nt s' w el l-b ei ng a ft er th ei r r et ur n to sc ho ol to a la rg e or so m e ex te nt R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es , t o a la rg e ex te nt (2 ) Y es , t o so m e ex te nt a nd (3 ) N o Sp en d in g ti m e ta lk in g w it h s tu d en ts a b o u t th ei r w el l- b ei n g C o u n tr y R ef er ra l o f s o m e st u d en ts t o w el l- b ei n g su p p o rt a va ila b le w it h in t h e sc h o o l R ef er ra l o f s o m e st u d en ts t o a d d it io n al w el l- b ei n g su p p o rt fr o m a ge n ci es o u ts id e th e sc h o o l In d ia 7 8 (9 .3 ) 7 0 (9 .7 ) 6 4 (7 .5 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 8 0 (1 .6 ) 5 9 (1 .7 ) 4 4 (1 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g 9 7 (0 .7 ) 6 5 (1 .9 ) 2 6 (1 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 1 (0 .9 ) 7 6 (1 .2 ) 3 8 (1 .4 ) U zb ek is ta n 9 6 (0 .5 ) 8 2 (0 .8 ) 7 8 (1 .2 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 6 7 5 3 2 8 D en m ar kg ,i 9 1 5 5 3 8 E th io p ia i 8 0 7 7 6 3 K en ya i 9 3 8 6 6 0 U ru gu ay g 9 3 k k166 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. D ev el o p in g an d im p le m en ti n g ad d it io n al s o ci al o r em o ti o n al le ar n in g in te rv en ti o n s C o u n tr y A d d it io n al m o n it o ri n g o f st u d en ts ’ h ea lt h a n d s af et y Im pl em en ti ng in te rv en ti on s re la te d to s tu de nt b eh av io ur P ro vi di ng a ct iv it ie s th ro ug h w hi ch s tu de nt s ne ed to c o- op er at e w it h ea ch o th er Ta bl e 4. 6. 9: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls m ak in g pr ov is io ns to su pp or t t he so ci al a nd e m ot io na l w el l-b ei ng o f s tu de nt s t o fa ci lit at e re gu la r ( fa ce -t o- fa ce ) t ea ch in g (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o B u rk in a F as o 1 6 (3 .9 ) 5 1 (6 .4 ) 4 2 (6 .2 ) 3 7 (5 .5 ) E th io p ia j 6 2 (4 .4 ) 7 6 (4 .3 ) 7 5 (4 .1 ) 5 1 (5 .4 ) In d ia 7 1 (8 .0 ) 8 1 (6 .0 ) 7 4 (8 .9 ) 7 2 (7 .6 ) K en ya g, j 7 3 (5 .7 ) 8 2 (4 .6 ) 8 3 (4 .8 ) 7 8 (4 .4 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 5 4 (5 .6 ) 8 6 (3 .6 ) 9 1 (2 .8 ) 7 9 (3 .9 ) R w an d a 7 4 (3 .8 ) 8 5 (3 .3 ) 8 7 (2 .7 ) 7 3 (3 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 4 7 (4 .9 ) 7 2 (4 .7 ) 5 8 (4 .7 ) 7 4 (4 .7 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 0 (2 .6 ) 9 6 (1 .5 ) 8 7 (3 .7 ) 9 2 (2 .3 ) U ru gu ay g, j 7 1 (4 .7 ) 7 4 (5 .9 ) 7 9 (5 .2 ) 7 0 (5 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n j 9 7 (1 .5 ) 9 7 (1 .9 ) 9 4 (1 .9 ) 9 1 (2 .7 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 4 4 n 7 1 n 5 6 n 6 4 n167 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. O ff er in g ad d it io n al s u p p o rt t o fa m ili es r eg ar d in g st u d en t w el l- b ei n g C o u n tr y O rg an is in g fo r o th er a ge n ci es t o p ro vi d e co u n se lli n g fo r fa m ili es w h er e it is t h o u gh t to b e n ee d ed P ro vi di ng n ut ri ti on fo r st ud en ts (e .g . l un ch p ro gr am m es ) C on ta ct in g ag en ci es th at p ro vi de fo od a nd o th er e ss en ti al s to a ss is t fa m ili es w ho n ee d he lp Ta bl e 4. 6. 9: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls m ak in g pr ov is io ns to su pp or t t he so ci al a nd e m ot io na l w el l-b ei ng o f s tu de nt s t o fa ci lit at e re gu la r ( fa ce -t o- fa ce ) t ea ch in g (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o B u rk in a F as o 1 4 (5 .5 ) 8 (2 .5 ) 7 (2 .5 ) 7 (2 .9 ) E th io p ia j 6 5 (4 .2 ) 4 5 (5 .0 ) 2 0 (4 .4 ) 3 2 (5 .2 ) In d ia 7 2 (9 .0 ) 5 4 (9 .9 ) 6 5 (7 .8 ) 5 2 (9 .2 ) K en ya g, j 5 5 (6 .2 ) 4 9 (6 .0 ) 5 0 (5 .9 ) 2 4 (4 .6 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 6 2 (5 .5 ) 4 1 (4 .8 ) 8 6 (3 .1 ) 3 2 (4 .7 ) R w an d a 6 3 (3 .8 ) 5 9 (4 .4 ) 8 1 (3 .3 ) 5 3 (4 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 5 4 (3 .8 ) 5 9 (5 .9 ) 5 3 (5 .5 ) 4 4 (5 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 2 (2 .1 ) 4 9 (5 .3 ) 4 4 (4 .9 ) 3 9 (4 .7 ) U ru gu ay g, j 8 0 (4 .2 ) 4 9 (5 .9 ) 3 2 (5 .5 ) 4 5 (4 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n j 9 0 (3 .5 ) 8 2 (4 .4 ) 5 4 (5 .8 ) 7 8 (4 .6 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 4 2 n 4 0 n 1 3 n 2 n168 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION 4.7 Academic progress, preparedness for future disruptions, and persisting changes Sabine Meinck, Mojca Rožman, Minge Chen Section highlights Pandemics, extreme weather conditions, strikes and other crises are likely to impact educational systems in the future. This section highlights students, teachers, and schools perceived preparedness for future disruptions. Students had to work independently during school closures. • A majority of students across countries reported that they felt confident in many aspects of their schoolwork, except in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya. • Between 20% to 80% of students in the countries participating in REDS felt unprepared for future school closures. REDS provides evidence regarding the openness of teachers towards innovation and shifting priorities in their profession. • Nearly all teachers in all participating countries believed that information and communication technology will be important for their work at schools in the future. • Teachers supported a shift in focus towards student well-being. Preparedness of schools for future disruptions varies substantially across countries. • While it was common that schools prepared learning materials, information, and transition plans for future disruptions, in some countries, a few schools didn’t prepare any of these resources. • In most countries, half, or more schools shifted their priorities regarding topics of higher importance during school closures (e.g., students’ and teachers’ well-being). • In six out of the eleven participating countries, about half or more of schools felt either not well prepared or not prepared at all for future disruptions. Many principals reported that students’ learning outcomes decreased. • Between one quarter and over three quarters of principals in all REDS countries supported this statement in general. • Most principals in each country believed that previously low-achievers and other vulnerable students did not progress as much as before the educational disruptions.169 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic caused a severe disruption in education all over the world, forcing schools, teachers, students, and parents to try out new teaching and learning approaches. This provided an opportunity for developments, innovations, changes, and improvements that may endure into the future. Capitalizing on the responses of students, teachers, and principals from up to 11 countries, this section will provide answers to the following questions: What changes persisted after the reference period and are likely to be retained after the pandemic? Have priorities shifted due to the experiences made during the pandemic? What measures will make it into a post-Covid world (i.e., means of communication, help, support, teaching and learning approaches, etc.)? Have schools implemented changes so that they are prepared for future disruptions? While some changes could be seen as improvements, others will come with substantial challenges. REDS asked, students about their confidence in being prepared for learning in the future, teachers about their opinions on the likelihood of the persistence of new teaching approaches and communication tools, and principals about the shifts in priorities and preparedness for future disruptions. Principals also voiced their opinions on changes in performance progress of the different groups of students. Students’ preparedness for learning in the future When schools closed and moved to remote learning, students were suddenly tasked to work more independently. Working independently is a skill that becomes increasingly important as children grow up, and a push towards its acquisition can be seen as a positive side effect of the disruption. REDS asked students how confident they felt about several aspects of their schoolwork at the time of data collection (i.e., some weeks or months after the reference period). Table 4.7.1 shows the percentages of students who felt “very confident” or “confident” regarding individual learning- related skills that became essential during the disruption. Students could also choose “not very confident” and “not at all confident” as response options. The first part of the table presents students’ confidence related to managing and evaluating the learning process. Reassuringly, more than 80% of students felt confident to complete their schoolwork independently, with the exception of Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya, where only two thirds or fewer of the respondents supported this statement. The response patterns for the remaining statements (feeling confident to plan when to do schoolwork on their own, assessing their learning progress, and seeking assistance from others when needed) displayed in part 1 of Table 4.7.1 are similar, but the respective percentages are slightly smaller. Notably, responding students in Denmark reported considerably less confidence in assessing their learning progress compared to the three other aspects presented. More variety in students’ confidence can be obtained from the second part of Table 4.7.1, where the focus is on more technical skills. Again, more than 80% of responding students in Denmark, and students in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan reported they felt confident finding learning resources on their own. However, just half of the participants from Ethiopia and Kenya claimed this, and only one out of four respondents in Burkina Faso. Further, nearly all students in Denmark, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates felt confident to use a learning management system or school learning platform, while only two thirds of the Russian students and very few student respondents from Burkina Faso and Kenya.16 In line with information from principals presented in Table 4.2.9, these results indicate that the use of such learning management systems or platforms varied widely across countries, but not within countries. Confidence in using videoconferencing software varied as much and very similarly within and between countries, indicating confidence of most students in some countries with this mode of learning versus medium or low proportions of students who reported respective confidence in other countries. 16 Note that Uzbekistan and Ethiopia did not administer this question.170 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Students were asked to assess their overall preparedness for learning from home in case of future disruptions, with the following response options “very well prepared,” “well prepared,” “not very prepared,” and “not prepared at all.” The last column in the second part of Table 4.7.1 presents the percentages of students responding they felt well or very well prepared if their school building closed for an extended period in the future. The results provide an important indicator of whether, from the perspectives of students, stakeholders in the education systems participating in REDS have learned from the disruption and how successful they implemented measures mitigating future shutdowns. About three quarters of students in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates felt very well or well prepared for future school closures. This also applies to 82% of respondents in Denmark. Only about half of Uzbek students and Ethiopian respondents felt the same, while just one out of three or even one out of five student respondents in Kenya and Burkina Faso, respectively, agreed they felt prepared for future disruptions. A significant portion of students in all participating countries did not feel very prepared or not prepared at all for similar educational disruptions in the future. This finding uncovers a need for further research on identifying those students and develop tailored measures to support them. Enduring new teaching practices The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) conducted in 2018 (Fraillon et al., 2019) provided evidence on the state of information and communications technology (ICT) use and teachers’ attitudes and confidence towards that use in 14 countries. Even though the countries participating in REDS were not all the same, it may be justifiable to make cautious comparisons regarding changes related to COVID-19, as all countries were affected by the pandemic. According to Fraillon et al. (2019), frequent use of ICT when teaching was only reported by less than half of the teachers in the countries participating in ICILS 2018, with considerable variations across educational systems. Further, the authors of that study report reported that a majority of targeted teachers lacked confidence in the use of online discussions, online collaboration, and the use of learning management systems, all tools that became highly important during the pandemic. Finally, a significant number of teachers expressed reservations due to negative effects of ICT. In summary, ICILS 2018 provided evidence that many teachers worldwide had reservations regarding using ICT for teaching and learning. Data collected in REDS seems to indicate a change regarding these attitudes. Table 4.7.2 shows the percentages of teachers believing certain practices or procedures will be “somewhat” or “very” important in the future (disregarding those who found them “not at all important”). Nearly all teachers in all participating countries believed that ICT will be at least somewhat important for their prospective work at schools. Of note, this applies to all countries, whether high percentages of their teachers reported to have been equipped with, have frequently used or/and liked ICT, or were confident with its use. Investigated practices were a blend of online learning and face- to-face teaching, submitting student work for assessment online, administering regular digital communication with students and parents, putting into practice new educational digital tools, implementing procedures for personal data security, and incorporating cyber safety (Table 4.7.2). The table presents the percentages of teachers believing these practices will be “very important” or “somewhat important,” leaving extremely few teachers saying these practices will be “not at all important” in the future. Moreover, nearly all teachers in all countries stated that they believed that new approaches to teaching and learning will be at least somewhat important in the future, indicating a remarkable openness of teachers for innovation within their profession (Table 4.7.2, part 1). Finally, again as many teachers claimed, an increased shift in focus to student well-being was necessary (Table 4.7.2, part 2), revealing this is an issue with high emphasis in times of crisis, and acknowledging the importance of the interrelation between students’ well-being and learning progress.171 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. C o m p le ti n g sc h o o lw o rk in d ep en d en tl y C o u n tr y P la n n in g w h en t o d o s ch o o lw o rk o n th ei r o w n A ss es si ng th ei r le ar ni ng pr og re ss Se ek in g as si st an ce fr om o th er s w he n th ey n ee d it Ta bl e 4. 7. 1: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s f ee lin g co nfi de nt o r v er y co nfi de nt a bo ut le ar ni ng in th e fu tu re (p ar t 1 o f 2 ). R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) V er y co nfi de nt (2 ) C on fid en t ( 3) N ot v er y co nfi de nt a nd (4 ) N ot c on fid en t a t a ll S tu d en ts fe el in g co n fi d en t o r ve ry c o n fi d en t ab o u t th e fo llo w in g as p ec ts o f t h ei r sc h o o lw o rk R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 8 2 (0 .8 ) 7 7 (0 .9 ) 7 0 (1 .2 ) 7 7 (0 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g 8 2 (0 .8 ) 7 5 (0 .8 ) 7 4 (0 .9 ) 8 0 (0 .8 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 8 5 (0 .8 ) 8 4 (0 .8 ) 8 0 (0 .9 ) 8 1 (1 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n h 8 9 (0 .8 ) 8 7 (1 .0 ) 8 9 (0 .7 ) 8 4 (0 .9 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 4 5 4 3 3 5 7 5 D en m ar k 8 2 n 7 9 n 5 1 n 7 8 n E th io p ia h 6 2 6 7 6 5 5 8 K en ya h 6 8 7 2 6 6 6 9172 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d st ud en ts w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. F in d in g le ar n in g re so u rc es o n t h ei r o w n C o u n tr y U si n g a le ar n in g m an ag em en t sy st em o r sc h o o l l ea rn in g p la tf o rm U si ng v id eo co nf er en ci ng s of tw ar e St ud en ts fe el in g w el l o r ve ry w el l pr ep ar ed fo r le ar ni ng fr om h om e if th ei r sc ho ol b ui ld in g cl os ed fo r an ex te nd ed p er io d in th e fu tu re Ta bl e 4. 7. 1: P er ce nt ag es o f s tu de nt s f ee lin g co nfi de nt o r v er y co nfi de nt a nd w el l o r v er y w el l p re pa re d ab ou t l ea rn in g in th e fu tu re (p ar t 2 o f 2 ). R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) V er y co nfi de nt (2 ) C on fid en t ( 3) N ot v er y co nfi de nt a nd (4 ) N ot c on fid en t a t a ll; (1 ) N ot p re pa re d at a ll (2 ) N ot v ey p re pa re d (3 ) W el l p re pa re d an d (4 ) V er y w el l p re pa re d S tu d en ts fe el in g co n fi d en t o r ve ry c o n fi d en t ab o u t th e fo llo w in g as p ec ts o f t h ei r sc h o o lw o rk R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 8 4 (0 .9 ) 6 9 (1 .2 ) 6 6 (1 .8 ) 7 3 (1 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 8 9 (0 .6 ) 9 0 (0 .7 ) 9 2 (0 .6 ) 7 9 (0 .9 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 8 6 (0 .8 ) 8 8 (0 .9 ) 9 0 (0 .8 ) 7 1 (1 .3 ) U zb ek is ta n h 9 0 (0 .7 ) k 6 9 (1 .7 ) 5 5 (1 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 2 7 8 6 2 1 D en m ar k 8 4 n 9 3 n 9 4 n 8 2 n E th io p ia h 5 0 k 2 7 4 9 K en ya h 5 2 2 4 2 0 3 5173 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . N ew a p p ro ac h es t o t ea ch in g an d le ar n in g C o u n tr y A b le n d o f o n lin e le ar n in g an d fa ce -t o -f ac e te ac h in g Su bm is si on o f s tu de nt w or k fo r as se ss m en t o nl in e R eg ul ar d ig it al c om m un ic at io n w it h st ud en ts Ta bl e 4. 7. 2: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s b el ie vi ng c er ta in p ra ct ic es o r p ro ce du re s w ill b e so m ew ha t o r v er y im po rt an t i n fu tu re (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) V er y im po rt an t ( 2) S om ew ha t i m po rt an t a nd (3 ) N ot a t a ll im po rt an t In d ia 9 7 (0 .8 ) 9 2 (1 .9 ) 9 0 (2 .4 ) 9 4 (1 .6 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 9 7 (0 .5 ) 8 8 (1 .2 ) 8 6 (1 .1 ) 8 7 (1 .3 ) Sl ov en ia g 9 8 (0 .4 ) 9 0 (1 .4 ) 9 1 (1 .1 ) 9 5 (0 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 9 (0 .2 ) 9 3 (0 .7 ) 9 7 (0 .4 ) 9 8 (0 .3 ) U zb ek is ta n 9 8 (0 .4 ) 8 6 (1 .1 ) 8 6 (1 .0 ) 9 3 (0 .7 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 5 9 4 8 9 9 2 D en m ar kg ,i 9 9 7 6 9 5 9 1 E th io p ia i 9 1 7 5 7 1 7 8 K en ya i 9 7 9 5 9 3 9 3 U ru gu ay g 9 7 9 0 9 4 9 4174 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . i M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d te ac he rs w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . N ew e d u ca ti o n al d ig it al t o o ls t h at I le ar n ed t o u se C o u n tr y R eg u la r d ig it al c o m m u n ic at io n w it h p ar en ts Im pl em en ti ng p ro ce du re s fo r pe rs on al d at a se cu ri ty a nd cy be r sa fe ty A n in cr ea se d sh if t i n fo cu s to st ud en t w el l- be in g Ta bl e 4. 7. 2: P er ce nt ag es o f t ea ch er s b el ie vi ng c er ta in p ra ct ic es o r p ro ce du re s w ill b e so m ew ha t o r v er y im po rt an t i n fu tu re (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) V er y im po rt an t ( 2) S om ew ha t i m po rt an t a nd (3 ) N ot a t a ll im po rt an t In d ia 9 6 (1 .2 ) 9 0 (3 .4 ) 9 2 (3 .9 ) 9 4 (1 .6 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 9 6 (0 .6 ) 8 9 (1 .2 ) 9 6 (0 .6 ) 9 4 (0 .9 ) Sl ov en ia g 9 9 (0 .4 ) 9 6 (0 .6 ) 9 7 (0 .6 ) 9 6 (0 .7 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 9 (0 .2 ) 9 8 (0 .4 ) 9 9 (0 .2 ) 9 9 (0 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n 9 8 (0 .5 ) 9 5 (0 .6 ) 9 7 (0 .4 ) 9 8 (0 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 2 9 1 9 5 9 7 D en m ar kg ,i 9 8 9 2 9 6 1 0 0 E th io p ia i 8 7 7 7 8 0 8 7 K en ya i 9 4 9 2 9 5 9 2 U ru gu ay g 9 9 8 0 9 6 9 7175 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Preparedness of schools for future disruptions While writing this report, the COVID-19 pandemic, and its effects on educational systems around the world is ongoing. Further, school closures may be needed to mitigate infection risks in many countries. Moreover, disruptions may become more likely, for example, due to the increasing effects of climate change. Hence, it would be desirable to prepare schools in the best ways possible for future educational disruptions. REDS asked principals whether they took specific actions to prepare for future remote teaching (“yes” or “no”). Table 4.7.3 shows the results of this investigation, giving rise to a widely varying picture. Accordingly, most schools in the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan adapted the existing curriculum plans for remote teaching. Only about half of the schools in Ethiopia, India, Kenya, and Rwanda did this, and just 11% of schools in Burkina Faso. The percentages of schools who had compiled teaching resources for parents and guardians to support their child’s learning outside the school varied greatly among countries, from almost all schools in the United Arab Emirates to 12% in Burkina Faso. This large variation among countries could also be observed with regard to the preparation of paper-based material for use in remote teaching. Both parts of Table 4.7.3 provide information on various actions regarding preparedness for online learning, such as preparation of digital materials, ensuring transition from classroom-based to online learning, access to digital learning opportunities, and training for teachers. While most if not all schools in Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan reported related measures, more than or about half of the schools in Denmark, India, Kenya, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, and Uruguay claimed to be prepared. In Ethiopia, about a quarter of schools or less took respective actions, while it was 10% or less in Burkina Faso. REDS further asked whether schools changed their priorities regarding a broad variety of selected topics, covering health and well-being, but also preconditions of teaching and learning. The percentages of schools who reported they “substantially increased” or “increased to some degree” their priorities are displayed in Table 4.7.4. Other response options were “did not change,” “decreased to some degree,” and “substantially decreased.” About half or more of the principals in all countries reported an increased priority of developing and implementing new social or emotional learning interventions, except for Danish’ participating principals. Also, a large majority of principals in most countries reported increased priorities for ensuring students health and safety, promoting student and staff well-being, and engaging with families. Some more variety between countries could be observed regarding the topics displayed in the second part of Table 4.7.4, still with a medium to high agreement on increases in priority of implementing interventions related to student behaviour, promoting student engagement in learning, addressing disparities in academic performance among students, and supporting professional learning for teachers. Notably, more than 90% of the principals in Slovenia and the United Arab Emirates increased the priority of planning for future school closures or other emergencies, while just two thirds or fewer principals stated this in other countries. Principals were asked, overall, how prepared they feel their school is for providing remote teaching if their school building was closed to students for an extended period in the future. About half or more schools in six out of the eleven participating countries reported they didn’t feel well prepared or not prepared at all, as shown in Table 4.7.5. Close to all principals stated this in Burkina Faso and Kenya, and about half of the principals in Ethiopia, India, the Russian Federation and Rwanda. Interestingly, significantly higher percentages of Russian students felt prepared than Russian schools (compare with Table 4.7.1). Further, almost all or all schools felt well or even very well prepared in Denmark, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates. In Uruguay and Uzbekistan, this also applied to a majority of schools. The results reveal important evidence to be considered by policy-makers in some countries, however, preparing their schools for future educational disruptions has not yet concluded in many schools.176 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. A d ap ti n g ex is ti n g cu rr ic u lu m p la n s fo r re m o te t ea ch in g C o u n tr y C o m p ili n g te ac h in g re so u rc es fo r p ar en ts /g u ar d ia n s to s u p p o rt t h ei r ch ild ’s le ar n in g o u ts id e th e sc h o o l P re pa ri ng p ap er -b as ed m at er ia l fo r us e in r em ot e te ac hi ng P re pa ri ng d ig it al m at er ia l f or u se in r em ot e te ac hi ng Ta bl e 4. 7. 3: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at to ok sp ec ifi c ac ti on s t o pr ep ar e fo r r em ot e te ac hi ng in c as e of fu tu re d is ru pt io ns su ch a s t he o ne c au se d by th e C O V ID -1 9 pa nd em ic (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o B u rk in a F as o 1 1 (3 .6 ) 1 2 (4 .0 ) 5 (2 .1 ) 4 (2 .0 ) E th io p ia j 5 1 (5 .2 ) 5 0 (5 .2 ) 6 3 (4 .6 ) 2 7 (3 .9 ) In d ia 5 9 (6 .5 ) 6 0 (7 .3 ) 6 9 (5 .1 ) 5 4 (6 .8 ) K en ya g, j 5 8 (5 .7 ) 5 6 (5 .2 ) 5 7 (6 .8 ) 6 6 (5 .8 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 8 3 (3 .8 ) 7 4 (4 .4 ) 7 2 (4 .5 ) 7 6 (5 .6 ) R w an d a 4 2 (3 .9 ) 4 3 (4 .0 ) 4 0 (4 .2 ) 4 9 (3 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 9 2 (2 .3 ) 5 1 (5 .1 ) 4 6 (6 .4 ) 9 0 (3 .2 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 9 (0 .5 ) 9 5 (2 .1 ) 7 3 (4 .2 ) 1 0 0 (0 .3 ) U ru gu ay g, j 8 1 (5 .8 ) 4 0 (7 .2 ) 5 3 (5 .2 ) 7 8 (4 .2 ) U zb ek is ta n j 8 5 (4 .5 ) 8 2 (4 .7 ) 6 9 (5 .1 ) 8 8 (3 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 4 9 n 2 9 n 4 5 n 6 9 n177 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. P re p ar in g d ig it al m at er ia ls fo r as se ss in g st u d en t le ar n in g vi a o n lin e as se ss m en t C o u n tr y E n su ri n g th at s tu d en ts h av e ac ce ss to d ig it al r es o u rc es fo r o n lin e le ar n in g Tr ai ni ng te ac hi ng s ta ff o n th e us e of vi de o co m m un ic at io n pr og ra m m es P re pa ri ng a p la n fo r tr an si ti on in g st ud en ts a nd te ac he rs fr om cl as sr oo m -b as ed te ac hi ng a nd le ar ni ng to r em ot e te ac hi ng a nd on lin e le ar ni ng Ta bl e 4. 7. 3: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at to ok s pe ci fic a ct io ns to p re pa re fo r r em ot e te ac hi ng in c as e of fu tu re d is ru pt io ns s uc h as th e on e ca us ed b y th e C O V ID -1 9 p an de m ic (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) Y es a nd (2 ) N o B u rk in a F as o 4 (2 .6 ) 8 (3 .3 ) 5 (2 .3 ) 4 (2 .2 ) E th io p ia j 2 4 (3 .1 ) 1 6 (3 .5 ) 1 7 (3 .9 ) 2 8 (3 .4 ) In d ia 6 4 (7 .3 ) 6 2 (9 .4 ) 5 5 (7 .6 ) 7 4 (7 .3 ) K en ya g, j 5 2 (5 .8 ) 4 9 (5 .9 ) 7 5 (5 .7 ) 5 2 (6 .7 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 7 8 (5 .5 ) 7 9 (4 .4 ) 9 0 (3 .8 ) 6 6 (5 .5 ) R w an d a 4 6 (3 .5 ) 3 4 (3 .6 ) 5 2 (3 .7 ) 4 2 (3 .9 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 8 9 (2 .9 ) 9 7 (1 .4 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) 9 6 (1 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 1 0 0 (0 .3 ) 1 0 0 (0 .3 ) 1 0 0 (0 .0 ) 9 9 (0 .4 ) U ru gu ay g, j 8 4 (5 .1 ) 8 5 (3 .9 ) 6 5 (7 .8 ) 5 7 (5 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n j 9 3 (3 .2 ) 8 5 (4 .4 ) 7 9 (4 .8 ) 9 0 (3 .6 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 6 1 n 8 3 n 6 9 n 5 9 n178 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 7. 4: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at in cr ea se d pr io ri ti es fo r s el ec te d to pi cs to so m e de gr ee o r s ub st an ti al ly a s a re su lt of th e C O V ID -1 9 pa nd em ic (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed D ev el o p in g an d im p le m en ti n g n ew s o ci al o r em o ti o n al le ar n in g in te rv en ti o n s E n su ri n g st u d en t h ea lt h an d s af et y P ro m o ti n g st af f w el l- b ei n g E n ga gi n g w it h fa m ili es P ro m o ti n g st u d en t w el l- b ei n g B u rk in a F as o 4 9 (6 .0 ) 8 4 (4 .1 ) 8 4 (3 .4 ) 8 4 (3 .5 ) 3 7 (5 .7 ) E th io p ia j 4 9 (4 .5 ) 6 5 (4 .4 ) 5 8 (4 .9 ) 5 4 (5 .2 ) 4 5 (4 .7 ) In d ia 5 9 (4 .9 ) 8 0 (7 .8 ) 6 8 (5 .9 ) 7 2 (6 .6 ) 6 6 (8 .2 ) K en ya g, j 7 9 (4 .9 ) 9 0 (3 .4 ) 8 1 (4 .3 ) 8 2 (4 .2 ) 6 4 (5 .8 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 7 2 (4 .3 ) 8 0 (4 .0 ) 5 9 (5 .7 ) 6 2 (5 .8 ) 7 4 (5 .0 ) R w an d a 8 2 (3 .4 ) 8 9 (2 .5 ) 8 1 (3 .1 ) 8 0 (3 .3 ) 7 5 (3 .4 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 7 1 (5 .4 ) 8 7 (4 .3 ) 8 3 (4 .0 ) 7 4 (5 .0 ) 8 0 (3 .7 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 9 1 (2 .7 ) 9 5 (1 .9 ) 9 0 (4 .7 ) 8 9 (4 .7 ) 7 9 (5 .6 ) U ru gu ay g, j 7 9 (6 .0 ) 9 4 (2 .7 ) 8 7 (2 .7 ) 8 6 (2 .9 ) 7 3 (4 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n j 6 4 (3 .9 ) 9 1 (3 .7 ) 9 5 (3 .2 ) 9 4 (3 .4 ) 7 9 (5 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 3 5 n 3 5 n 7 1 n 6 7 n 5 4 n179 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. Ta bl e 4. 7. 4: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls th at in cr ea se d pr io ri ti es fo r s el ec te d to pi cs to so m e de gr ee o r s ub st an ti al ly a s a re su lt of th e C O V ID -1 9 pa nd em ic (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed Im p le m en ti n g in te rv en ti o n s re la te d t o s tu d en t b eh av io u r P ro m o ti n g st u d en t en ga ge m en t in le ar n in g Su p p o rt in g p ro fe ss io n al le ar n in g fo r te ac h er s P la n n in g fo r fu tu re sc h o o l c lo su re s o r o th er em er ge n ci es A d d re ss in g d is p ar it ie s in ac ad em ic p er fo rm an ce am o n g st u d en ts B u rk in a F as o 7 3 (4 .2 ) 7 9 (4 .4 ) 4 7 (6 .6 ) 3 1 (5 .8 ) 3 3 (6 .7 ) E th io p ia i 5 2 (4 .5 ) 5 3 (5 .0 ) 3 7 (3 .7 ) 4 6 (5 .3 ) 5 8 (4 .8 ) In d ia 6 2 (6 .2 ) 7 1 (6 .8 ) 6 3 (4 .7 ) 5 8 (8 .4 ) 6 6 (5 .6 ) K en ya g, j 9 0 (3 .4 ) 8 2 (4 .6 ) 6 8 (6 .0 ) 7 7 (4 .5 ) 7 1 (4 .7 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n i 6 3 (5 .5 ) 5 1 (5 .6 ) 5 3 (5 .1 ) 6 6 (5 .0 ) 5 9 (6 .1 ) R w an d a 8 7 (2 .8 ) 8 2 (3 .1 ) 7 3 (3 .5 ) 7 9 (3 .2 ) 7 7 (3 .4 ) Sl ov en ia g, i 5 5 (5 .2 ) 8 8 (2 .8 ) 6 7 (5 .8 ) 8 6 (3 .8 ) 9 2 (2 .9 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 5 (5 .6 ) 8 4 (3 .3 ) 7 4 (5 .0 ) 8 6 (3 .1 ) 9 1 (2 .9 ) U ru gu ay g, j 6 2 (6 .3 ) 7 9 (4 .3 ) 7 7 (3 .3 ) 6 1 (7 .2 ) 7 4 (4 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n i 7 3 (4 .8 ) 7 2 (4 .6 ) 6 6 (5 .0 ) 7 0 (5 .3 ) 7 6 (5 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 4 0 n 3 5 n 2 3 n 2 5 n 5 8 n180 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. N o t p re p ar ed a t al l C o u n tr y N o t ve ry w el l p re p ar ed W el l p re pa re d V er y w el l p re pa re d Ta bl e 4. 7. 5: P er ce nt ag es o f s ch oo ls fe el in g pr ep ar ed fo r p ro vi di ng re m ot e te ac hi ng if th ei r s ch oo l b ui ld in g w as c lo se d to st ud en ts fo r a n ex te nd ed p er io d in th e fu tu re B u rk in a F as o 8 7 (3 .6 ) 1 0 (3 .3 ) 2 (1 .0 ) 1 (0 .9 ) E th io p ia j 1 8 (3 .8 ) 3 3 (5 .5 ) 3 8 (4 .5 ) 1 1 (3 .5 ) In d ia 1 7 (5 .7 ) 3 4 (5 .3 ) 4 0 (4 .8 ) 9 (3 .5 ) K en ya g, j 2 4 (4 .8 ) 6 5 (5 .0 ) 1 0 (3 .3 ) 1 (1 .2 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 3 (1 .9 ) 4 4 (5 .9 ) 5 1 (5 .6 ) 2 (1 .0 ) R w an d a 1 6 (3 .0 ) 5 0 (4 .6 ) 3 1 (3 .8 ) 4 (1 .7 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 0 (0 .0 ) 0 (0 .3 ) 6 2 (5 .5 ) 3 8 (5 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 0 (0 .0 ) 1 (0 .5 ) 3 0 (5 .7 ) 6 9 (5 .6 ) U ru gu ay g, j 1 (0 .7 ) 1 5 (3 .5 ) 6 8 (5 .8 ) 1 6 (4 .6 ) U zb ek is ta n j 2 (1 .3 ) 1 7 (4 .7 ) 6 5 (5 .3 ) 1 6 (4 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j, n 0 0 5 3 4 7181 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Academic progress of students Many students were affected during the pandemic in various ways, as was described in Section 4.5. Further, presenting opinions of students and teachers, Section 4.6 gives strong indications that at least specific groups of students have not learned as much during the school closures than they would have during regular school times. As a consequence, performance gaps for specific groups of students may have widened during the COVID-19 disruptions. Such gaps, but also general learning deficits, may persist in the future if no adequate remedial action is taken. REDS cannot provide evidence on this hypothesis, as we did not collect data on student achievement, but gives principals a voice regarding this topic. Table 4.7.6 shows the percentages of principals believing academic performance of specific groups of students in their school “substantially decreased” or “decreased to some degree” due to their experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic. Other response options were “did not change,” “decreased to some degree,” and “substantially decreased.” Assuming principals are a reliable source of information regarding this question, the table presents concerning evidence of potential learning deficits of students. Between 25% (United Arab Emirates) and 85% (Slovenia) of the principals stated they believed that, generally, academic outcomes of all students in their school decreased due to the pandemic. This also held true for target grade students. About one quarter to half of the principals in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Rwanda, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan believed that the performance of high- and low-achieving students was affected, as well as those from vulnerable student groups (see both parts of Table 4.7.6). In contrast, fewer principals saw high-achieving students endangered in Denmark, Slovenia, and Uruguay, while in the same countries many more principals believed the academic achievement of low-achieving students, those from low-income backgrounds, students with special needs, and those whose first language is not the language of instruction, decreased. Beliefs of principals are mostly aligned with those of students (compare with Table 4.2.12) and teachers (compare with Tables 4.2.14 and 4.2.15). Even though studies investigating learning progress are pending, evidence is calling for remedial action to make up for the loss in learning progress for all students, adding specific measures for groups that might have been affected more than others, be it due to more difficult learning environments, limited access to remote learning opportunities, or other challenges. References Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for life in a digital world: the IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 38781-5182 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. A ll St u d en ts C o u n tr y Ta rg et g ra d e st u d en ts H ig h- ac hi ev in g st ud en ts Lo w -a ch ie vi ng s tu de nt s Ta bl e 4. 7. 6: P er ce nt ag es o f p ri nc ip al s b el ie vi ng a ca de m ic o ut co m es o f s pe ci fic g ro up s o f s tu de nt s i n th ei r s ch oo l d ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee o r s ub st an ti al ly d ue to th e ex pe ri en ce s i n th e C O V ID -1 9 pa nd em ic (p ar t 1 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed B u rk in a F as o 3 9 (4 .7 ) 4 0 (4 .8 ) 4 2 (5 .7 ) 3 9 (4 .9 ) E th io p ia j 4 5 (5 .0 ) 4 0 (5 .1 ) 4 5 (5 .4 ) 4 3 (5 .0 ) In d ia 5 1 (1 0 .3 ) 5 1 (1 0 .6 ) 4 8 (9 .9 ) 4 4 (9 .7 ) K en ya g, j 4 2 (5 .5 ) 4 1 (5 .6 ) 3 2 (5 .4 ) 4 4 (5 .9 ) R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 4 7 (5 .2 ) 5 6 (4 .7 ) 3 6 (5 .5 ) 5 2 (6 .1 ) R w an d a 4 6 (4 .3 ) 4 5 (4 .3 ) 4 4 (4 .4 ) 4 2 (4 .0 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 8 5 (3 .6 ) 7 9 (4 .8 ) 2 3 (3 .6 ) 8 9 (3 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 4 (4 .1 ) 2 4 (4 .4 ) 1 3 (3 .4 ) 2 8 (4 .3 ) U ru gu ay g, j 5 6 (6 .4 ) 6 0 (7 .4 ) 2 4 (4 .2 ) 8 2 (6 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n j 3 4 (5 .1 ) 3 8 (5 .6 ) 3 4 (5 .7 ) 3 4 (5 .0 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 7 9 n 8 3 n 4 2 n 8 5 n183 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . j M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge te d sc ho ol s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . k T hi s i te m w as n ot a dm in is te re d in th is c ou nt ry . n D at a ar e av ai la bl e fo r a t l ea st 7 0% b ut le ss th an 8 5% o f t he re sp on de nt s. St u d en ts fr o m lo w -i n co m e b ac kg ro u n d s C o u n tr y St u d en ts w it h s p ec ia l n ee d s St u d en ts w h o se fi rs t la n gu ag e is n o t th e la n gu ag e o f i n st ru ct io n a t sc h o o l Ta b le 4 .7 .6 : P er ce nt ag es o f p ri nc ip al s b el ie vi ng a ca de m ic o ut co m es o f s pe ci fic g ro up s o f s tu de nt s i n th ei r s ch oo l d ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee o r s ub st an ti al ly d ue to th e ex pe ri en ce s i n th e C O V ID -1 9 pa nd em ic (p ar t 2 o f 2 ) R es po ns e ca te go ri es w er e: (1 ) S ub st an ti al ly in cr ea se d (2 ) I nc re as ed to so m e de gr ee (3 ) D id n ot c ha ng e (4 ) D ec re as ed to so m e de gr ee a nd (5 ) S ub st an ti al ly d ec re as ed B u rk in a F as o 4 8 (5 .6 ) 3 9 (6 .4 ) 3 7 (4 .6 ) E th io p ia j 4 4 (5 .4 ) 4 4 (6 .8 ) 3 9 (5 .7 ) In d ia 5 3 (9 .1 ) 5 2 (1 0 .3 ) k K en ya g, j 4 6 (6 .7 ) 4 8 (6 .6 ) k R u ss ia n F ed er at io n j 3 9 (5 .9 ) 3 3 (6 .2 ) 3 0 (5 .3 ) R w an d a 4 4 (4 .6 ) 4 0 (4 .4 ) 3 7 (4 .0 ) Sl ov en ia g, j 6 6 (5 .5 ) 7 8 (4 .5 ) 8 9 (3 .5 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 4 (4 .3 ) 2 6 (4 .5 ) 2 2 (4 .1 ) U ru gu ay g, j 7 9 (5 .8 ) 7 1 (7 .7 ) k U zb ek is ta n j 2 3 (4 .5 ) 2 0 (4 .2 ) 2 2 (4 .9 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n D en m ar kg ,j 6 9 n 5 6 n 7 7 n184 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION 4.8 Inequalities in teaching and learning during the pandemic Rolf Strietholt, Felix Süttmann Section highlights Inequality of educational opportunity is a recurring topic in discussions around the COVID-19 disruption. While the previous sections of this report have revealed notable differences between countries, this section describes educational inequalities by gender, socioeconomic status, and school locations. We examined inequalities that were observed during the changed educational settings imposed by the pandemic, focusing on homeschooling, wellbeing, anxiety about education, and preparedness for self-directed learning. We chose to not examine general disadvantages for specific groups of students across these themes, but rather specific patterns of inequality in individual countries. Almost all students are affected by school closures during COVID-19. • In Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya, students from low socioeconomic homes and students in rural schools were more likely to report not completing any schoolwork at all. • In all other countries, we observed no such difference in access to school between any student groups. We observed inequalities in terms of the likelihood that parents work from home, but not in terms of losing their job. • Working from home was more common for socioeconomically advantaged parents and took place in urban areas for most counties. • Job loss is related to social status, gender, or school location in some countries but not in others. Inequality in mental and physical health existed in only a few countries. • Loneliness was more common among male students in Uzbekistan and more common among female students in Denmark. • In Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya, socially vulnerable students reported less physical activity; in Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan, males reported less physical activity. Worrying about falling behind correlates with student characteristics. • In all countries, socioeconomically disadvantaged students were more likely to express fear of falling behind than socioeconomically privileged children. • Female students were particularly concerned that COVID-19 will affect their future education in Russia, Slovenia, and Denmark.185 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Introduction Inclusive and equitable education is a central component of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals and in the academic discourse on education (e.g., United Nations, 2015; Kyriakides, Creemers, & Charalambous, 2018). While the previous sections focus on differences among countries, this section focuses on inequalities within countries. Following the extensive literature on group differences in educational opportunity (e.g., Coleman et al., 1966; Jencks et al., 1972), we considered three categories of inequality: gender gaps, socioeconomic gaps, and the rural-urban divide. These and other dimensions of inequality have been part of the reporting in international comparative studies for many years (e.g., Mullis et al., 2020; Rolfe, et al., 2021; Rosén, 2001; Strietholt, et al., 2019). The section addresses the REDS research question: What were the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on learning and on students? Inequality is a concept that can be studied on a student, class, school, or regional level. In this section, we report on differences at the student level. For this reason, the analyses presented in this section are limited to the eight countries where student questionnaires were administered, which are Burkina Faso, Denmark, Ethiopia, Kenya, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, the United Arabic Emirates (UAE), and Uzbekistan. Because student surveys were not conducted in India, Rwanda, and Uruguay, analyses of inequality among specific student groups cannot be reported for those countries. The findings reported in this section do not consider the full range of topics that have been covered in the previous sections of this report. While we do not claim to be comprehensive, we have tried to capture as broad a range of topics as possible in our selection of variables. Typically, similar patterns of (unreported) results were observed in many cases among the variables on the same set of topics. How inequality was measured Following the previous research on inequality of educational opportunity, we study gender, urban- rural, and socioeconomic status gaps. While determining which students belong to which groups, we investigated whether the samples were sufficiently large for respective comparisons (Figure 4.8.1). The gender gap is simply defined as the difference between males and females. The left panel of Figure 4.8.1 shows that gender is roughly equally distributed in the samples of all eight countries. The socioeconomic status (SES) was determined by using an index that combined student-reported information on parental education, parental occupation, and the number of books in the household. In the case of varying education or occupations of the parents, we used the highest ranked parent as value. We computed the sum of the three indicators to divide students in each countries’ sample into groups of low and high SES bases on this sum score. Since REDS compares a wide range of economically developed and developing countries, we used relative (country-specific) thresholds to form two roughly equally sized groups of low and high SES students for each country. An alternative strategy would have been to use the same absolute threshold for all countries, but then the proportions of students in the low and high SES groups would have been very unevenly distributed. Figure 4.8.1 shows the distribution of low and high SES students in each sample. We tried to establish groups of approximately equal size by assigning the median group to the smaller tail, this did yield good results overall. In the Russian Federation and Burkina Faso, the SES-index does not differentiate well in the middle of the distribution. However, in all countries the samples of both groups contain at least 300 students, and we consider this sample size sufficiently large for group comparisons. School locations reported by principals were used to calculate the difference between students in rural and urban areas. Villages or towns with less than 15,000 inhabitants were defined as rural and towns with more than 15,000 inhabitants as urban. The number of student respondents that enrolled in schools in urban areas varies considerably across countries, between about 20-80% (see Figure 4.8.1). Most of the respondents in Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and Burkina Faso attended a school in an urban region, whereas most respondents in Uzbekistan, Slovenia, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Denmark attended a school in a rural region. The sample sizes of students186 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Notes: g Low participation rates. See Appendix A1, Tables A1.5 to A1.9 for details. h More than 5% of targeted students were excluded. See Chapter 3 Table 3.1 for details. Russian Federationh Russian Federationh Sloveniag Sloveniag United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates Uzbekistanh Uzbekistanh Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Denmark Denmark Ethiopiah Ethiopiah Kenyah Kenyah 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Number of observations Number of observations SES Low High Gender Male Female Kenya, Ethiopia, and Denmark attended a school in a rural region. The sample sizes of students attending schools in rural areas are comparatively small in Denmark and Kenya, so the urban-rural comparisons are subject to higher uncertainty in these countries. Reporting of inequalities Figure 4.8.1: Students’ sample distribution of gender, SES, and school location Data may not be representative of target population Data may not be representative of target population187 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Notes: g Low participation rates. See Appendix A1, Tables A1.5 to A1.9 for details. h More than 5% of targeted students were excluded. See Chapter 3, Table 3.1 for details. Region Urban Rural Figure 4.8.1 (continued): Students’ sample distribution of gender, SES, and school location attending schools in rural areas are comparatively small in Denmark and Kenya, so the urban-rural comparisons are subject to higher uncertainty in these countries. Reporting of inequalities In line with the previous sections in Chapter 4, we collapsed categories of Likert-style response categories and frequency scales to simplify the reporting and to ease the interpretation of the findings. We then calculated the weighted proportion of students who agreed with each statement and computed the differences between males and females, students in schools in urban and rural areas, and students from low and high SES households. In line with other chapters, student data from Burkina Faso, Denmark, Ethiopia, and Kenya remained unweighted (see Chapter 3, Section 3.8). Differences in the proportions are also referred to as risk differences, and we define differences up to 5% as negligible and without practical relevance. T-tests were conducted to test whether the observed differences were statistically significant (different from zero). Students with missing data were excluded from the respective analyses, so the samples for the analyses on gender, urban- rural, and SES gaps are based on somewhat different samples. Changing learning and living spaces: Home-schooling and home office The pandemic affected family life in many ways. While many students no longer had access to the school facilities, many parents had to work from home. If students are no longer cared for in schools, it makes a difference whether parents worked at home or outside their homes during the pandemic. Furthermore, job loss during the pandemic also has multiple consequences for the environment in which children live during the pandemic, these include parents' time for their children, available financial resources, and parents' stress levels. In the following section, we use selected indicators to examine if the learning and living conditions of male and female students, students in schools in Russian Federationh Sloveniag United Arab Emirates Uzbekistanh Burkina Faso Denmark Ethiopiah Kenyah 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Number of observations Data may not be representative of target population188 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Notes: f The question about school lessons attendance during the COVID-19 disruption was not administered in Slovenia. h More than 5% of targeted students were excluded. See Chapter 3, Table 3.1 for details. All schoolwork at school Schoolwork at home No schoolwork at all 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Russian Federationh Sloveniaf United Arab Emirates Uzbekistanh Burkina Faso Denmark Ethiopiah Kenyah Percent Low SES High SES selected indicators to examine if the learning and living conditions of male and female students, students in schools in urban and rural areas, and families with low and high SES differed during the COVID-19 disruption. Figure 4.8.2 shows how many students were able to continue all their schoolwork in school, how many had to learn at least partly outside school, and how many students did not learn at all. In Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya, a remarkable share of student respondents reported that they did not do any schoolwork during the reference period of the COVID-19 disruption. In these three countries, consistently, low SES students, as well as students who attend school in rural areas, are more likely to have completed no schoolwork at all. Compared to the large differences across countries, however, the within-country gaps are small. Even if students did schoolwork during the pandemic, most students reported that they did not do it, or did it only partially in schools. There is only a small minority of students in each country who reported that they continued to come to school for all lessons. In this regard, we observe little disparity across gender, SES, and school location. An approach to continuing learning during school closures is for parents to work from home so that they can support their children and work in parallel. This is especially important if both parents are otherwise working outside their homes. In REDS, students were asked if one or both parents were working from home during the COVID-19 disruption. Inequalities in the proportion of students who agreed to this question are presented by country in Table 4.8.2. Firstly, we observed that there is a great deal of variances in different countries in the share of parents working from home. Besides these cross-country differences, the overview reveals that students with a high socioeconomic background report more frequently that their parents worked from home. Figure 4.8.2: Inequalities in school closures and the continuation of schoolwork Data may not be representative of target population189 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Notes: f The question about school lessons attendance during the COVID-19 disruption was not administered in Slovenia. h More than 5% of targeted students were excluded. See Chapter 3, Table 3.1 for details. Figure 4.8.2 (continued): Inequalities in school closures and the continuation of schoolwork All schoolwork at school Schoolwork at home No schoolwork at all All schoolwork at school Schoolwork at home No schoolwork at all 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Russian Federationh Russian Federationh Sloveniaf Sloveniaf United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates Uzbekistanh Uzbekistanh Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Denmark Denmark Ethiopiah Ethiopiah Kenyah Kenyah Percent Percent Female Rural Male Urban Data may not be representative of target population Data may not be representative of target population190 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Very large differences between low and high SES students were observed in Slovenia and Denmark (25% and 30%). Less extreme but still notable SES inequalities of more than 10% were also observed in the Russian Federation, the United Arab Emirates, and Burkina Faso. In Uzbekistan, Ethiopia, and Kenya, these differences are negligible. The degree of urbanization relates to the possibility to work at home, the more populated the area the more difficult it is to comply with social distancing measures, and therefore the more beneficial it is to work from home. The rural environment does not have the same proximity issues, and therefore working from home is perhaps less common. The results from the student survey confirm this, in most countries including Burkina Faso, Denmark, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates, working from home was more common for parents of students at schools in urban areas. Exceptions to this general pattern are Uzbekistan and Ethiopia, where no differences were observed, and Kenya, where parents in rural areas, who are engaged in their own farming, are more likely to work from home. In contrast to the observed inequalities based on social status and school location, the proportion of male and female students’ parents who work at home is about the same in all countries. The pandemic significantly affected the employment market in most countries around the globe, with many jobs put in jeopardy. To obtain information on this, in REDS, students were asked if one or both of their parents lost their job during the COVID-19 disruption. Between about 10% of all students in Denmark and Slovenia to up to 60% of students in Kenya reported that one or both their parents lost their jobs during the pandemic. Table 4.8.1 shows that low SES students reported that one or both parents lost their job more often in comparison to high SES students, although the overall differences are mostly small. While the SES-related difference amounts to slightly more than 10% in Uzbekistan (42% for low SES and 32% for high SES) they are smaller in the other countries. Another exception is Ethiopia, where respondents with high SES reported more frequently than those with low SES that one or both parents lost their job. Differences regarding parents’ job losses between genders and school locations are neglectable, and inconsistent across countries. We suggest not to overinterpret the gender gaps, as we do not assume real differences but rather gender-typical response tendencies. The only notable difference is that in Kenya, the percentage of students whose parents lost their jobs is 17% higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Since the sample in Kenya contains very few students attending school in an urban area (see Figure 4.8.2), we think that this finding should not be overinterpreted. Mental and physical well-being The closure of schools and other public facilities affected children's lives not only in terms of school matters. But also, for example, due to the closure of schools and other institutions, children had generally less social contact and fewer opportunities for joint sports and recreational activities. This section will shed light on whether students’ SES, gender, and school location relates to mental and physical well-being during the pandemic. An important component of mental well-being in a period of social distancing is loneliness. To measure loneliness, students were asked to what extent they agree with the statement “I felt more lonely than usual” during the COVID-19 disruptions, the respondents were provided with the following response options “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Table 4.8.3 reports the proportion of students who “agree” or “strongly agree” that they felt more lonely during the disruption. In contrast to the previous sections in Chapter 4, we observed fewer international variations in mental well-being. In addition, Table 4.8.3 shows that socioeconomically disadvantaged students in the Russian Federation and Kenya were somewhat more likely to report being lonelier. In all other countries, students from low and high SES backgrounds were equally likely to report that during the pandemic they felt more lonely than usual. With respect to gender differences, the results are inconclusive across countries. While 18% more males than females reported loneliness in Denmark, 14% more females than males reported loneliness in Uzbekistan. In the other countries the differences are small. Differences in school locations are small overall, except for Ethiopia and Kenya, where loneliness is reported 10% more often in rural areas.191 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION N ot es : *p ≤ .0 5 ** p ≤ .0 1 St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. In te rp re ta tio n ex am pl e: In th e Ru ss ia n Fe de ra tio n, 2 % m or e st ud en ts w ith lo w S ES h ad p ar en ts w ho lo st th ei r j ob , c om pa re d to st ud en ts w ith h ig h SE S. T he d iff er en ce is st at is tic al ly si gn ifi ca nt . g L ow p ar tic ip at io n ra te s. Se e A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge t s tu de nt s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . B ec au se p er ce nt ag es a re ro un de d to th e ne ar es t w ho le n um be r, so m e ga ps m ay a pp ea r i nc on si st en t. SE S G en d er R eg io n Ta bl e 4. 8. 1: In eq ua lit ie s i n th e pr op or ti on o f s tu de nt s w ho re po rt ed th at th ei r p ar en ts lo st th ei r j ob C o u n tr y Lo w (% ) H ig h ( % ) SE S ga p (% ) Fe m al e (% ) M al e (% ) G en d er g ap R u ra l ( % ) U rb an ( % ) R eg io n g ap R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 1 2 (1 .1 ) 9 (0 .9 ) 2 (0 .8 ) ** 1 1 (1 .0 ) 1 0 ( 1 .1 ) 2 (1 .1 ) 1 2 (2 .0 ) 1 0 (0 .9 ) 2 (2 .1 ) Sl ov en ia g 9 (0 .8 ) 7 (0 .9 ) 3 (1 .1 ) * 6 (0 .7 ) 1 0 ( 1 .0 ) -5 (1 .2 ) ** 9 (0 .8 ) 6 (0 .9 ) 2 (1 .1 ) * U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 1 5 (1 .1 ) 1 2 (1 .0 ) 3 (1 .2 ) * 1 1 (1 .1 ) 1 6 ( 1 .2 ) -5 (1 .6 ) ** 1 0 (1 .2 ) 1 5 (1 .0 ) -5 (1 .5 ) ** U zb ek is ta n h 4 2 (2 .0 ) 3 2 (1 .8 ) 1 0 (2 .3 ) ** 3 5 (1 .9 ) 4 0 ( 1 .9 ) -4 (2 .1 ) * 3 8 (1 .9 ) 3 6 (2 .7 ) 1 (3 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 1 4 1 6 -2 1 6 1 6 0 1 2 1 9 -6 D en m ar k 1 2 6 6 8 1 0 -2 1 0 8 3 E th io p ia h 3 3 3 9 -5 3 6 3 4 2 3 5 3 5 0 K en ya h 6 7 6 1 6 6 6 6 1 5 6 6 4 9 1 7192 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Lo w (% ) H ig h ( % ) SE S ga p (% ) Fe m al e (% ) M al e (% ) G en d er g ap R u ra l ( % ) U rb an ( % ) R eg io n g ap N ot es : *p ≤ .0 5 ** p ≤ .0 1 St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. In te rp re ta tio n ex am pl e: In th e Ru ss ia n Fe de ra tio n, 1 4% m or e st ud en ts w ith h ig h SE S ha d pa re nt s w or ki ng fr om h om e, c om pa re d to st ud en ts w ith lo w S ES . T he d iff er en ce is st at is tic al ly si gn ifi ca nt . g L ow p ar tic ip at io n ra te s. Se e A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge t s tu de nt s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . B ec au se p er ce nt ag es a re ro un de d to th e ne ar es t w ho le n um be r, so m e ga ps m ay a pp ea r i nc on si st en t. Ta bl e 4. 8. 2: In eq ua lit ie s i n th e pr op or ti on o f s tu de nt s w ho re po rt ed th at th ei r p ar en ts w or ke d fr om h om e SE S G en d er R eg io n C o u n tr y R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 2 8 (1 .4 ) 4 2 (1 .1 ) -1 4 (1 .4 ) * * 3 5 ( 1 .2 ) 3 3 ( 1 .6 ) 2 (1 .7 ) 2 8 (2 .6 ) 3 6 (1 .4 ) -8 ( 3 .1 ) * * Sl ov en ia g 2 4 (1 .2 ) 5 4 (1 .8 ) -3 0 (2 .0 ) * * 3 9 ( 1 .7 ) 3 7 ( 1 .3 ) 2 (1 .8 ) 3 7 (1 .5 ) 4 4 (2 .4 ) - 7 ( 3 .0 ) * U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 4 0 (1 .5 ) 5 7 (2 .0 ) -1 7 (2 .3 ) * * 4 7 ( 1 .8 ) 4 9 ( 2 .0 ) -2 (2 .4 ) 3 8 (3 .1 ) 5 1 (1 .7 ) -1 2 ( 3 .7 ) * * U zb ek is ta n h 5 2 (1 .7 ) 5 4 (1 .9 ) -2 (1 .9 ) 5 2 ( 1 .9 ) 5 4 ( 1 .7 ) -3 (2 .0 ) 5 3 (1 .9 ) 5 2 (2 .3 ) 1 ( 3 .2 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 2 4 3 6 -1 2 2 8 2 8 0 2 0 3 4 -1 4 D en m ar k 4 8 7 5 -2 6 5 9 5 8 1 5 7 6 8 -1 1 E th io p ia h 5 7 5 2 4 5 4 5 6 -2 5 7 5 5 2 K en ya h 5 9 6 6 -8 6 3 6 1 2 6 4 5 2 1 2193 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Lo w (% ) H ig h ( % ) SE S ga p (% ) Fe m al e (% ) M al e (% ) G en d er g ap R u ra l ( % ) U rb an ( % ) R eg io n g ap N ot es : *p ≤ .0 5 ** p ≤ .0 1 St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. In te rp re ta tio n ex am pl e: In th e Ru ss ia n Fe de ra tio n, 6 % m or e st ud en ts w ith lo w S ES e xp re ss ed lo ne lin es s, co m pa re d to st ud en ts w ith h ig h SE S. T he d iff er en ce is st at is tic al ly si gn ifi ca nt . g L ow p ar tic ip at io n ra te s. Se e A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge t s tu de nt s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . B ec au se p er ce nt ag es a re ro un de d to th e ne ar es t w ho le n um be r, so m e ga ps m ay a pp ea r i nc on si st en t. Ta bl e 4. 8. 3: In eq ua lit ie s i n th e pr op or ti on o f s tu de nt s w ho e xp re ss ed lo ne lin es s SE S G en d er R eg io n C o u n tr y R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 4 0 (1 .5 ) 3 4 (1 .5 ) 6 (2 .0 ) * * 4 0 ( 1 .8 ) 3 5 ( 1 .2 ) 5 (2 .0 ) * 4 0 (2 .4 ) 3 7 (1 .2 ) 4 (2 .6 ) Sl ov en ia g 5 3 (1 .6 ) 5 3 (1 .8 ) 0 (2 .3 ) 5 5 ( 1 .8 ) 5 1 ( 1 .7 ) 4 (2 .6 ) 5 2 (1 .4 ) 5 4 (2 .2 ) -1 (2 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 5 7 (1 .4 ) 5 5 (1 .7 ) 2 (2 .2 ) 5 6 ( 1 .6 ) 5 6 ( 1 .2 ) 0 (2 .0 ) 5 4 (1 .9 ) 5 6 (1 .3 ) -2 (2 .3 ) U zb ek is ta n h 4 6 (1 .7 ) 4 6 (2 .1 ) 1 (2 .3 ) 3 9 ( 1 .7 ) 5 3 ( 1 .7 ) -1 4 (1 .7 ) ** 4 6 (1 .7 ) 4 8 (2 .8 ) -2 (3 .4 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 6 4 6 5 0 6 3 6 5 -1 6 3 6 5 -2 D en m ar k 6 0 5 8 2 6 6 4 8 1 8 5 6 6 0 -4 E th io p ia h 6 4 6 0 3 6 2 6 2 -1 6 3 5 3 1 0 K en ya h 6 7 5 8 9 6 5 6 0 6 6 4 5 4 1 0194 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Physical well-being Physical activity is an indicator of physical well-being and health. In REDS, students were asked to what extent they agree to the statement “I exercised (including walking) more than usual” during the COVID-19 disruptions. The students were given the following response options “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” In Burkina Faso (11%), Ethiopia (11%), and Kenya (8%), high SES student respondents reported doing physical activities more often than their peers with low SES backgrounds (see Table 4.8.4, left panel). In the other countries, the differences are mixed and generally smaller. In terms of gender differences, males in the Russian Federation, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan reported doing physical activity significantly more frequently compared to the female students from those countries, respectively (9%, 8%, 5%), whereas the differences in the other countries are small. Differences found between students in schools in urban and rural areas in all countries on whether they were more physically active during the pandemic than before were negligible. In addition to the within-country difference, Table 4.8.4 also reveals considerable variation across countries, ranging from less than half of the students in Russia to more than three out of four in Uzbekistan. Anxiety about students learning and future education REDS investigated how students examine the consequences of COVID-19 on their own educational careers. Specifically, students were asked to evaluate how concerned they were about how COVID-19 would affect their learning during the educational disruption, as well as whether they felt that they had fallen behind after the disruption had ended. In the next section, we examine SES, gender, and school location related gaps in students’ anxiety about education. Students were asked to indicate the extent with which they were worried about their future education during the educational interruption. The item wording was “I was worried about how [this disruption] will affect my future education” with the response options “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” While the majority of the students in all countries reported that they are worried, the levels of concern in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uzbekistan were once again considerably higher than in the other countries. Females reported considerably more than males that they agreed or strongly agreed that the disruption will affect their future education in the Russian Federation (8%), Slovenia (13%), and Denmark (19%); in the other countries, the gender gaps were negligible (see Table 4.8.5). In terms of the SES, we find that disadvantaged students tend to be more concerned in most of the countries except for Kenya, although the differences are overall small. With respect to the school locations, we found that students in urban areas were even more concerned than in rural areas in Kenya (11%). In the other countries, the observed inequities between schools in urban and rural areas were smaller and mixed. To measure the perceived consequences of COVID-19 on learning, students were asked how much they agreed to the statement “I felt that I had fallen behind in my learning compared to other students” using a four-point scale with the response options “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Table 4.8.6 compares the share of students who agreed or strongly agreed to this statement by gender, SES, and school locations. The table shows that high SES students were less concerned that they have fallen behind than low SES students in all countries. The differences amount to 7 to 9% except for the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan where the differences are neglectable. In terms of gender, we found only minor differences in most countries. Exceptions were males in Uzbekistan and females in Denmark, who are 13% and 11% more likely, respectively, to report that they have fallen behind. The comparison of urban and rural areas showed that students from school in rural areas are much more concerned about falling behind in Ethiopia (15%) and Kenya (16%). Student respondents in rural areas in Burkina Faso (8%) and Denmark (6%) also report respective concerns more often, although the differences are smaller. There are hardly any differences in the other countries. Besides these within-country differences, we observed that students in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya reported to be more worried than their peers in the other countries.195 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Lo w (% ) H ig h ( % ) SE S ga p (% ) Fe m al e (% ) M al e (% ) G en d er g ap R u ra l ( % ) U rb an ( % ) R eg io n g ap Ta bl e 4. 8. 4: In eq ua lit ie s i n th e pr op or ti on o f s tu de nt s w ho re po rt ed to e xe rc is e m or e th an u su al SE S G en d er R eg io n C o u n tr y N ot es : *p ≤ .0 5 ** p ≤ .0 1 St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. In te rp re ta ti on e xa m pl e: In th e R us si an F ed er at io n, th er e is n o st at is ti ca lly si gn ifi ca nt d iff er en ce b et w ee n st ud en ts w it h lo w a nd h ig h SE S re ga rd in g th e re po rt in g of fr eq ue nc y of e xc er si ng . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge t s tu de nt s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . B ec au se p er ce nt ag es a re ro un de d to th e ne ar es t w ho le n um be r, so m e ga ps m ay a pp ea r i nc on si st en t. R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 4 9 (1 .7 ) 4 7 (1 .6 ) 2 (2 .0 ) 4 4 ( 1 .4 ) 5 3 ( 1 .8 ) -9 (2 .0 ) ** 5 2 (2 .4 ) 4 7 (1 .4 ) 5 (2 .6 ) 5 Sl ov en ia g 6 0 (1 .6 ) 6 2 (1 .9 ) -2 (2 .2 ) 6 2 ( 1 .6 ) 6 0 ( 1 .9 ) 2 (2 .3 ) 6 2 (1 .5 ) 5 8 (2 .7 ) 4 (3 .1 ) 4 U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 6 9 (1 .4 ) 6 3 (2 .0 ) 6 (2 .5 ) * 6 3 ( 1 .5 ) 7 1 ( 1 .4 ) -8 (2 .0 ) ** 6 9 (2 .1 ) 6 6 (1 .2 ) 3 (2 .2 ) 3 U zb ek is ta n h 7 8 (1 .3 ) 7 7 (1 .9 ) 1 (2 .0 ) 7 5 ( 1 .7 ) 8 0 ( 1 .6 ) -5 (2 .1 ) * 7 7 (1 .4 ) 7 7 (2 .7 ) 0 (3 .1 ) 0 D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 3 2 4 5 -1 4 3 6 3 9 -3 3 8 3 8 0 D en m ar k 4 8 4 6 2 4 9 4 4 5 4 6 4 9 -3 E th io p ia h 5 1 6 2 -1 1 5 5 5 7 -2 5 5 5 8 -2 K en ya h 5 9 6 6 -7 6 2 6 1 0 6 2 6 7 -5196 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Lo w (% ) H ig h ( % ) SE S ga p (% ) Fe m al e (% ) M al e (% ) G en d er g ap R u ra l ( % ) U rb an ( % ) R eg io n g ap N ot es : *p ≤ .0 5 ** p ≤ .0 1 St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. In te rp re ta ti on e xa m pl e: In th e R us si an F ed er at io n, th er e is n o st at is ti ca lly si gn ifi ca nt d iff er en ce b et w ee n st ud en ts w it h lo w a nd h ig h SE S re ga rd in g w or ri ed ne ss a bo ut fu tu re e du ca ti on . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge t s tu de nt s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . B ec au se p er ce nt ag es a re ro un de d to th e ne ar es t w ho le n um be r, so m e ga ps m ay a pp ea r i nc on si st en t. Ta bl e 4. 8. 5: In eq ua lit ie s i n an xi et y ab ou t f ut ur e ed uc at io n SE S G en d er R eg io n C o u n tr y R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 6 8 (1 .4 ) 6 7 (1 .8 ) 0 (2 .2 ) 7 2 ( 1 .3 ) 6 3 ( 1 .3 ) 8 (1 .5 ) ** 6 8 (2 .0 ) 6 7 (1 .3 ) 1 (2 .2 ) Sl ov en ia g 6 6 (1 .7 ) 6 1 (1 .8 ) 5 (2 .1 ) * 7 0 ( 1 .6 ) 5 8 ( 1 .8 ) 1 3 (1 .9 ) ** 6 4 (1 .5 ) 6 3 (3 .1 ) 1 (3 .4 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 7 6 (1 .4 ) 7 2 (1 .6 ) 4 (2 .0 ) * 7 5 ( 1 .3 ) 7 2 ( 1 .6 ) 3 (2 .1 ) 7 7 (1 .6 ) 7 3 (1 .3 ) 4 (2 .1 ) U zb ek is ta n h 8 1 (1 .2 ) 7 8 (1 .5 ) 2 (1 .8 ) 7 9 ( 1 .4 ) 8 1 ( 1 .3 ) -2 (1 .8 ) 8 0 (1 .2 ) 7 8 (1 .5 ) 2 (1 .9 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 9 2 8 7 5 9 0 9 0 0 8 9 9 1 -2 D en m ar k 5 8 5 4 4 6 6 4 8 1 9 5 6 6 2 -6 E th io p ia h 8 6 7 7 9 8 2 8 0 2 8 1 8 3 -2 K en ya h 8 2 8 3 -1 8 0 8 4 -4 8 0 9 2 -1 1197 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Lo w (% ) H ig h ( % ) SE S ga p (% ) Fe m al e (% ) M al e (% ) G en d er g ap R u ra l ( % ) U rb an ( % ) R eg io n g ap N ot es : *p ≤ .0 5 ** p ≤ .0 1 St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. In te rp re ta tio n ex am pl e: In th e Ru ss ia n Fe de ra tio n, 7 % m or e st ud en ts w ith lo w S ES w er e w or rie d ab ou t f al lin g be hi nd , c om pa re d to st ud en ts w ith h ig h SE S. T he d iff er en ce is st at is tic al ly si gn ifi ca nt . g L ow p ar tic ip at io n ra te s. Se e A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge t s tu de nt s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . B ec au se p er ce nt ag es a re ro un de d to th e ne ar es t w ho le n um be r, so m e ga ps m ay a pp ea r i nc on si st en t. Ta bl e 4. 8. 6: In eq ua lit ie s i n an xi et y ab ou t f al lin g be hi nd in le ar ni ng SE S G en d er R eg io n C o u n tr y R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 3 8 (1 .1 ) 3 1 (1 .5 ) 7 (1 .4 ) * * 3 8 ( 1 .4 ) 3 3 ( 1 .7 ) 5 (2 .2 ) * 3 9 (1 .8 ) 3 4 (1 .2 ) 5 ( 2 .0 ) ** Sl ov en ia g 4 2 (1 .6 ) 3 2 (1 .2 ) 9 (1 .8 ) * * 3 6 ( 1 .6 ) 3 9 ( 1 .7 ) -3 (2 .3 ) 3 6 (1 .3 ) 4 0 (2 .3 ) -3 ( 2 .6 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 4 5 (1 .9 ) 4 2 (1 .6 ) 4 (2 .4 ) 4 3 ( 1 .5 ) 4 5 ( 2 .0 ) -2 (2 .6 ) 4 3 (2 .4 ) 4 4 (1 .5 ) -1 ( 2 .9 ) U zb ek is ta n h 3 9 (1 .7 ) 3 8 (1 .8 ) 1 (2 .1 ) 3 3 ( 1 .7 ) 4 5 ( 1 .8 ) -1 3 ( 1 .8 ) * * 3 8 (1 .7 ) 4 4 (2 .3 ) -6 ( 2 .9 ) * D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 7 4 6 5 9 7 2 7 1 1 7 5 6 7 8 D en m ar k 4 5 3 3 1 2 4 5 3 4 1 1 4 4 3 7 6 E th io p ia h 5 3 5 0 3 5 0 5 5 -5 5 4 3 9 1 5 K en ya h 6 9 5 5 1 3 6 4 6 1 3 6 4 4 8 1 6198 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Preparedness for self-directed learning Self-directed learning takes on a particular importance in times of distance learning. Students must independently plan schoolwork, find learning materials, and complete assignments on their own. In the following section, we look at how well students succeeded in this from their own perspective during the educational disruption and how well they see themselves prepared for future disruptions. Of note, school closures may occur not only during pandemics, but also due to teacher strikes, extreme weather conditions, or because of students being unable to attend regular classes due to illness. A key component of self-directed learning is the ability to independently complete schoolwork. Students were asked about their confidence in “completing schoolwork independently” with the response options “very confident,” “confident,” “not very confident,” “not at all confident.” In all countries, students with a high SES background reported feeling confident or very confident in completing schoolwork independently more frequently than low SES students, with very small and insignificant differences in the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan (see Table 4.8.7). We also observed differences between schools in rural and urban regions, with students from urban regions feeling more confident in many countries except for Slovenia, though mostly small and insignificant, except for the Russian Federation. The largest urban-rural-gaps were observed in Denmark, Ethiopia, and Kenya (-8%, -9%, -16%). In contrast to observed SES and regional differences, males and females equally reported feeling (very) confident in completing their schoolwork independently. Large differences, however, were observed across countries. Students in Denmark, Russia, Slovenia, UAE, and Uzbekistan reported considerably higher confidence than their counterparts in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Kenya. To study how well students felt prepared for possible future school closures, they were asked “Overall, how prepared do you feel for learning from home if your school building closed for an extended period in the future?”. The possible response options were “not prepared at all,” “not very prepared,” “well prepared,” and “very well prepared.” Table 4.8.8 shows inequalities in terms of SES, gender, and school location consistently across all countries. Students with high SES reported being well or very well prepared more frequently than their peers with low SES, and students from schools in urban areas reported being well or very well prepared more frequently than their peers in rural areas. In contrast, gender gaps are country-dependent and generally smaller than the other gaps. In the Russian Federation, the United Arab Emirates and in Kenya, 5% or more male students felt more well prepared than the females, while this higher percentage applied to female students in Slovenia. The most striking difference, however, can be observed across countries.199 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Lo w (% ) H ig h ( % ) SE S ga p (% ) Fe m al e (% ) M al e (% ) G en d er g ap R u ra l ( % ) U rb an ( % ) R eg io n g ap N ot es : *p ≤ .0 5 ** p ≤ .0 1 St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. In te rp re ta tio n ex am pl e: In th e Ru ss ia n Fe de ra tio n, 8 % m or e st ud en ts w ith h ig h SE S w er e co nfi de nt to p la n sc ho ol w or k in de pe nd en tly , c om pa re d to st ud en ts w ith lo w S ES . T he d iff er en ce is st at is tic al ly si gn ifi ca nt . g L ow p ar tic ip at io n ra te s. Se e A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge t s tu de nt s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . B ec au se p er ce nt ag es a re ro un de d to th e ne ar es t w ho le n um be r, so m e ga ps m ay a pp ea r i nc on si st en t. Ta bl e 4. 8. 7: In eq ua lit ie s i n co nfi de nc e to p la n sc ho ol w or k in de pe nd en tly SE S G en d er R eg io n C o u n tr y R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 7 8 (1 .2 ) 8 6 (0 .9 ) -8 (1 .6 ) * * 8 1 ( 1 .1 ) 8 2 ( 1 .2 ) -1 (1 .7 ) 7 9 (1 .3 ) 8 3 (1 .0 ) -4 ( 1 .7 ) * Sl ov en ia g 8 0 (1 .3 ) 8 6 (1 .2 ) -6 (1 .8 ) * * 8 2 ( 1 .3 ) 8 2 ( 1 .2 ) 0 (1 .8 ) 8 3 (1 .0 ) 8 0 (1 .6 ) 3 ( 1 .8 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 8 5 (1 .1 ) 8 6 (1 .0 ) -2 (1 .4 ) 8 4 ( 1 .1 ) 8 6 ( 1 .1 ) -2 (1 .4 ) 8 4 (1 .8 ) 8 5 (0 .9 ) -1 ( 2 .0 ) U zb ek is ta n h 8 8 (1 .1 ) 9 1 (1 .0 ) -2 (1 .3 ) 9 1 ( 1 .0 ) 8 8 ( 1 .0 ) 3 (1 .1 ) ** 8 9 (1 .0 ) 9 2 (1 .2 ) -3 ( 1 .6 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 4 2 5 0 -8 4 5 4 5 0 4 3 4 6 -3 D en m ar k 8 0 8 8 -8 8 3 8 2 0 7 9 8 7 -8 E th io p ia h 6 1 6 4 -3 6 3 6 1 2 6 1 7 0 -9 K en ya h 6 2 7 6 -1 4 6 7 6 7 0 6 5 8 1 -1 6200 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Lo w (% ) H ig h ( % ) SE S ga p (% ) Fe m al e (% ) M al e (% ) G en d er g ap R u ra l ( % ) U rb an ( % ) R eg io n g ap N ot es : *p ≤ .0 5 ** p ≤ .0 1 St an da rd e rr or s a pp ea r i n pa re nt he se s. In te rp re ta ti on e xa m pl e: In th e R us si an F ed er at io n, 1 1% m or e st ud en ts w it h hi gh S ES fe lt pr ep ar ed fo r f ut ur e sc ho ol c lo su re s, c om pa re d to st ud en ts w it h lo w S ES . T he d iff er en ce is st at is ti ca lly si gn ifi ca nt . g L ow p ar ti ci pa ti on ra te s. S ee A pp en di x A 1, T ab le s A 1. 5 to A 1. 9 fo r d et ai ls . h M or e th an 5 % o f t ar ge t s tu de nt s w er e ex cl ud ed . S ee C ha pt er 3 , T ab le 3 .1 fo r d et ai ls . B ec au se p er ce nt ag es a re ro un de d to th e ne ar es t w ho le n um be r, so m e ga ps m ay a pp ea r i nc on si st en t. Ta bl e 4. 8. 8: In eq ua lit ie s i n fe el in g pr ep ar ed fo r f ut ur e sc ho ol c lo su re s SE S G en d er R eg io n C o u n tr y R u ss ia n F ed er at io n h 6 8 (1 .4 ) 7 9 (1 .2 ) -1 1 (1 .6 ) * * 6 8 ( 1 .5 ) 7 7 ( 1 .6 ) -8 (2 .1 ) ** 6 5 (2 .1 ) 7 6 (1 .3 ) -1 1 ( 2 .6 ) ** Sl ov en ia g 7 6 (1 .2 ) 8 3 (1 .4 ) -7 (1 .8 ) * * 8 2 ( 1 .1 ) 7 7 ( 1 .5 ) 6 (1 .8 ) ** 7 9 (1 .2 ) 8 1 (1 .8 ) -2 ( 2 .1 ) U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 6 6 (1 .6 ) 7 7 (1 .6 ) -1 1 (2 .0 ) * * 6 9 ( 1 .5 ) 7 4 ( 1 .6 ) -5 (1 .7 ) ** 6 5 (2 .4 ) 7 3 (1 .5 ) -8 ( 2 .8 ) ** U zb ek is ta n h 5 1 (1 .7 ) 6 0 (1 .7 ) -8 (2 .1 ) * * 5 3 ( 1 .8 ) 5 7 ( 1 .6 ) -4 (2 .1 ) 5 4 (1 .6 ) 5 8 (2 .9 ) -3 ( 3 .3 ) D at a m ay n o t b e re p re se n ta ti ve o f t ar ge t p o p u la ti o n B u rk in a F as o 1 4 2 9 -1 4 2 0 2 0 -1 1 2 2 7 -1 5 D en m ar k 7 9 8 8 -8 8 4 7 8 6 8 0 8 2 -2 E th io p ia h 4 5 5 5 -1 0 5 0 4 8 2 4 9 5 8 -9 K en ya h 2 6 4 4 -1 8 3 3 3 7 -5 3 3 4 6 -1 3201 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION References Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Charalambous, E. (2018). Equity and quality dimensions in educational effectiveness. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72066-1_1 Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., . . . Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. New York, NY: Basic Books. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/ timss2019/ Rolfe, V., Strietholt, R., & Yang Hansen, K. (2021). Does inequality in opportunity perpetuate inequality in outcomes? International evidence from four TIMSS cycles. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101086 Rosén, M. (2001). Gender differences in reading performance on documents across countries. Reading and Writing, 14(1/2), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007995107442 Strietholt, R., Gustafsson, J. E., Hogrebe, N., Rolfe, V., Rosén, M., Steinmann, I., & Yang-Hansen, K. (2019). The Impact of Education Policies on Socioeconomic Inequality in Student Achievement: A Review of Comparative Studies. In L. Volante, S. V. Schnepf, J. Jerrim, & K. D. A (Eds.), The impact of education policies on socioeconomic inequality in student achievement: A review of comparative studies. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9863-6_2 United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Retrieved October 16, 2016. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E202 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION CHAPTER 5 Reflections and conclusions Julian Fraillon, Sabine Meinck Introduction The Response to Educational Disruption Study (REDS) is an extraordinary study initiated in response to extraordinary events. REDS data illustrate the agility and flexibility demonstrated by many systems, schools, teachers and students in their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. These characteristics were similarly key to the successful implementation of REDS, which was conducted from conception through to the reporting of international data in a period of less than 18 months. Despite this very compressed project life cycle relative to more conventional international large-scale assessments (ILSA), REDS achieved many of the quality standards that are typical of IEA studies, and that support the reporting of high-quality nationally representative data. Details of the impact of any compromises of conventional ILSA processes on the interpretation of data presented in this report are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 (see Section 3.8). REDS reports on data collected from 11 culturally and economically diverse countries, with similarly diverse school systems and schools. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was different across all countries, in terms of the number of people affected, the duration of the period(s) of the greatest impact, and the consequent national responses of education systems and schools. According to UNESCO data, in April 2020, over 1.1 billion school learners were affected by the pandemic (at that time) with country wide school-closures affecting 117 countries (UNESCO, 2021); and, at the time of writing this report (October 2021), there are over 55 million affected students, with country-wide school closures affecting 14 countries (UNESCO, 2021). This is a stark reminder that, while this report provides information from a snapshot of experiences in 11 countries, by reflecting on the past it does not suggest that, the pandemic, or the impacts of the pandemic are over. REDS served to collect methodologically robust data that may be used to support countries, school systems, and schools in their understanding of the impacts of the pandemic on schooling with an eye also to how these may affect schooling into the future. In this chapter, we reflect on the findings presented in this report. The chapter is structured according to four themes that have emerged from the report, and includes observations of, and reflections on, selected results. The discussions of the themes are generalized across the countries, and consequently do not represent the richness and diversity of the data, within and among the participating countries, that can be seen in the individual sections of this report. Observations recorded in this chapter are accompanied by references to the relevant tables and figures in the report, and readers are encouraged to read the more detailed discussions that are presented within the different sections. The first theme discussed in this chapter relates to the mechanisms put in place by schools to continue teaching and learning programmes during the disruption period. The impact of the disruption on teachers, on curriculum and assessment, and on students, are the three further themes addressed in this chapter. How schools continued to operate during the pandemic All 11 countries that participated in REDS reported at least one period of physical closure of most schools for most students in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In REDS, the first of these periods in 2020 within each country was also the defined reference period, that survey respondents were to keep in mind when answering questions about the various impacts of the COVID-19 disruption during the pandemic (see Chapter 2 for further details). The periods of school closure varied across REDS countries, mostly starting in the Northern Hemisphere in Spring of 2020, and lasting from one to two months in the Russian Federation to more than a year in Kenya and Rwanda (Chapter 4, Section 4.1, Table 4.2.1, and Figure 4.2.1). In addition to this large variation in203 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION the duration of school closures, there were variations in the participation of students in schooling and the modes, media, and teaching methods used during the reference period. In Burkina Faso and Rwanda, 92% and 70% of school leaders reported that they did not offer any teaching and learning provisions during the disruption period, and this was also reported by smaller proportions of school leaders in Kenya (47%), Ethiopia (44%), and India (28%) (Table 4.2.8). The duration of the school closures in combination with the percentages of schools not offering any remote teaching reveals a stark inequality in learning opportunities of students in countries with relatively lower measured development according to the Human Development Index17 (HDI) than those with higher HDI measures. Missing out on learning opportunities over many months or even a whole year will most likely lead to an increasing achievement gap between affected students compared to their peers in countries where schooling continued. Hence, while this chapter discusses what schools did in order to continue operations, it is important to acknowledge that not all schools in all countries were able to continue operations during the disruption period. There were large variations among the organizational approaches that were used in the schools where teaching and learning continued. Schools adapted according to their contexts, and the resources that were available to them. While it was reported that most schools adjusted school starting times and break times for different groups of students during or following the disruption, relatively fewer schools reported reducing class sizes, or increasing the number of staff (Tables 4.2.7 and 4.6.5). The modes of lesson delivery were also influenced by local contexts and available infrastructure. In particular, information and communications technology (ICT) based remote teaching and learning was implemented in the more affluent countries with high overall levels of access to the internet, and student access to digital devices. Many teachers reported using online teaching methods only, or a mix of online and offline methods (Table 4.2.2), however, in almost all countries some face-to- face teaching was maintained in schools. Between about 20% and 40% of teachers in six countries reported having retained substantial hours of face-to-face teaching on school grounds, although this was reported by less than 20% of teachers in the remaining countries (Table 4.2.3). The shift to online teaching methods was not, however, without challenge. Large proportions of school leaders across many countries reported that remote teaching using ICT was at least somewhat limited by factors such as students’ access to digital devices, reliable and sufficient internet, and teachers’ technical skills and experience in remote teaching pedagogies (Table 4.2.8). It is possible that teachers who previously were inexperienced in the use of digital technology in teaching, through necessity, developed greater proficiency during the disruption. Regardless, however, the REDS data suggest that, in countries where remote teaching using ICT is used, providing targeted support regarding teacher use of ICT in their teaching may help prepare countries for any future similar disruptions to schooling. The role of schools typically extends beyond the provision of teaching and includes well-being support to students and their families. REDS suggests that the priority of this area of support increased in schools during the period of disruption. Large majorities of school leaders across countries reported increased priorities in the provision of social and emotional support, health and safety support, and the promotion of well-being to students, staff and families (Table 4.7.4). School leaders also reported having set up additional tools to monitor students’ health and safety and that their schools offered access to specific services and support for family well-being (Table 4.6.6). The majority of schools also reported providing support to parents and guardians on how they could help their children when working from home (such as planning the day and workload), but also on emotional support and support services available to families and children (Table 4.4.9). High proportions of teachers reported both spending time talking with students about well-being, and providing information to students and their families about health and well-being. In addition, many teachers also reported referring students to well-being support within or outside of school (Table 4.6.4). On a positive note, the higher priority and effort by schools in providing well-being 17 “The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable, and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.” (United Nations Development Programme, [UNDP] 2021).204 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION support was recognized by students, with most students across the participating countries reporting that they received helpful information about safety and health and well-being from their schools and teachers (Table 4.5.10). The impact of the changed teaching and learning conditions on teachers Teacher workload generally increased in countries where teaching and learning continued during the disruption. This is an unsurprising consequence of the need for teachers to adapt to new school arrangements, to altered modes and methods of teaching and to changes in their roles in schools (such as having expanded roles in supporting student well-being). Across countries, increases were observed in the time allocated to teachers to complete many “typical” aspects of their work (Table 4.2.16), and the reduced opportunities for face-to-face contact with students, families, and their peers meant that many teachers needed to spend additional time on maintaining effective communication with these groups (Table 4.3.5). In addition to an increased workload, many teachers also worked for some periods of time outside of school buildings, typically at home. Between one-third and two-thirds of teachers reported having school-aged children who were participating in remote learning at home. Unsurprisingly, one-third or more teachers also reported being frequently interrupted by other people in their household when teaching or preparing lessons (Table 4.2.6). Many teachers (majorities of teachers in some but not all countries) also reported that they were not able to teach to the same standard during the disruption as they could before the disruption (Table 4.2.14). Despite these challenges to their working environment, across countries, majorities of teachers reported that they were able to balance the needs of their work with their personal responsibilities, that they felt in control of their working environment when working from home, and that they were able to meet all the requirements of their job (Table 4.5.6). These largely positive attitudes in the face of a changing and challenging working environment may potentially be attributed to a broad range of factors including, the flexibility, resilience and professionalism of teachers, and the support teachers were offered by their families, peers and schools. It is beyond the scope of REDS to report on the contributions of these factors to teachers’ attitudes to the changes in the demands and conditions of their work, and this is an area that warrants further research. School support for student well-being was discussed in the previous section. However, schools also have a responsibility to monitor and support teacher well-being. A large majority of teachers reported that they felt supported by their school leadership, by their colleagues, and that they felt that the support mechanisms offered by their schools were sufficient (Table 4.5.7). Furthermore, nearly all teachers in all countries reported that new approaches to teaching and learning adopted during the disruption period, including the use of ICT, will be at least somewhat important into the future (Table 4.7.2). System and school responses to the COVID-19 pandemic typically resulted in increased workload for teachers, together with changed and potentially stressful working environments. However, overall teachers have demonstrated considerable resilience in managing to continue their work, with the support of their schools, peers, and others. While this is a largely positive set of findings, one should not ignore the impact of the pandemic on the smaller, but not insignificant proportion of teachers across countries who reported, for example, that they did not feel in control of their environment, could not balance their workload or complete the requirements of their job. Further research and consideration is warranted into understanding the factors that both led to successful outcomes for many teachers but also unsuccessful outcomes for others, and how these findings may relate to regular schooling in the future and also in preparation for any future disruptions to schooling. There remains also a question of whether, if remote schooling were to persist beyond months, increasing proportions of teachers may burn-out, or at least not be able to maintain the increased workload and work effectively in their disrupted workplace environments long-term.205 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION The impact on curriculum delivery and assessment In all countries, more than half the teachers reported that, while following the content specified in the regular curriculum, they narrowed the focus of their teaching to the essential components. Furthermore, most teachers in most countries reported that they also taught highly modified components of the practical curriculum (Table 4.2.13) and, in preparation for potential future disruptions, the majority of schools in a number of countries adapted existing curriculum plans to support remote teaching (Table 4.7.3). Teachers also reported having insufficient time to provide differentiated teaching to suit the individual needs of their students (Table 4.4.5). Together, these data suggest that there may have been less breadth in the curriculum being delivered within subjects during the disruption period, than during regular schooling. In effect, there may have been a narrowing of the curriculum as one way of accommodating the challenges of remote teaching and learning. The assessment of student learning and associated reporting were also affected during the disruption period. Most school leaders in most countries reported that their school reduced the scope of reporting requirements (Table 4.3.12). Across most countries, around half or more teachers reported using the same types of assessments during the period of disruption as they did before, and with the same regularity (Table 4.3.10). However, there remained not insignificant proportions of teachers in every country who reported changes in the nature and frequency of assessments administered to their students. Additionally, large proportions (typically more than 70%) of teachers across countries reported that the disruption made the assessment of students with special needs and practical aspects of student work (e.g., science experiments, art projects, music performances) more difficult (Table 4.3.10). On balance, it appears that in response to the changed arrangements under the disruption, many (although not all) schools chose to focus on core aspects of the curriculum, with some reduced reporting expectations and opportunities for differentiated learning. This is arguably a suite of pragmatic short-term solutions to support the continuation of teaching and learning under changed and challenging circumstances, yet questions would remain about longer-term impacts and viability of these decisions were the changed conditions to persist over longer time periods. The impact on students Student learning progress While REDS investigated the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on schools and schooling from a range of perspectives, the impact of the disruption on student learning progress was central to REDS. REDS collected data from school leaders, teachers, and students about their perceptions of student learning progress during the period of disruption. The reports by these three groups were highly consistent, that each group of respondents believed that student learning progress was inhibited during the period of disruption. Half, or less than half, of the teachers in all countries reported their students showed the same rate of learning growth during the disruption as before the disruption (Table 4.2.14), and more than half of the teachers in many countries reported decreases in student learning (Table 4.2.15). Majorities of teachers agreed also that their students’ learning progress had not advanced to the extent that teachers would normally have expected at the time of the year (Table 4.6.3). Of additional concern is the finding that negative impacts of the disruption on student learning may have been exacerbated by student disadvantage. Many principals across countries agreed that the academic outcomes of disadvantaged students decreased, even more than that of their peers, during the disruption (Table 4.7.6), the majority of teachers in all countries agreed that it was difficult to provide lower achieving and vulnerable students with the support they required (Table 4.4.5) and, students from low SES backgrounds were more concerned that they had fallen behind in their learning than students from high SES backgrounds (Table 4.8.8). It was beyond the scope of REDS to collect direct measures of student learning, however,206 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION undoubtedly many countries will collect data with a view to understanding differences in student achievement before and after the pandemic. However, independently of the outcomes of any such direct measures of student learning progress, the fact that all three REDS respondent groups consistently believed that learning progress was inhibited during the period of disruption has broader implications for education, for planning the transition back to regular schooling, and for planning responses to any future disruptions. Student well-being Students found the period of disruption challenging, and the additional priority placed by schools on supporting student well-being was well justified. Most students agreed that they were more worried than usual about their friends and family getting sick (Table 4.5.2), more than half of students across countries agreed that they felt anxious about the changes in their schooling (Table 4.5.3), and most students across countries missed their usual contact with their classmates (Table 4.5.3). The experience of learning during the period of disruption was also challenging for many students. Most students across countries reported that their motivation and confidence to complete their schoolwork, and that the quality of their schoolwork, did not increase during the period of disruption (Table 4.2.11). About half of the students across countries agreed it became more difficult to use teacher’s feedback to improve their own work and to know how well they were progressing during the period of disruption (Table 4.2.12). Similarly, more than half the teachers across the participating countries reported that student engagement decreased, and many teachers reported student productivity had also decreased (Table 4.2.15). It is important to note, however, that these findings were not attributable to all students. In all countries, there remained smaller proportions of students who did not report such negative experience of learning during the disruption. On a positive note, the support offered by schools was recognized and appreciated by students. More than half the students across the participating countries felt supported by, and part of, their school (Table 4.5.3), many students agreed they had one or more teachers whom they felt comfortable to ask for help (Table 4.3.5), that that their teachers had made it clear how best to contact them, and that their teachers were available to them when they asked for help (Table 4.4.3). Many students in all countries agreed that they had a good relationship with their teachers during the reference period, and more than two-thirds of the students in most countries said their teachers showed interest in their learning and encouraged them to learn (Table 4.4.3). This leaves, however, a smaller but non-negligible proportion of students who felt unsupported during the disruption. There remains an important task to identify those students, to understand their particular needs, and to develop tailored measures to support their return to regular schooling. Returning to regular schooling The majority of students expressed positive attitudes about returning to school (Table 4.6.1) and while majorities of students found it hard to manage the COVID-19 routines at their school, most also indicated that they understood the changed arrangements in their school (Table 4.6.2). Taken together, these findings are consistent with previous observations that schools were communicating well with their students, but that despite this, changes to students’ routines and school experience were not always easy for students to manage. Also, consistent with previously discussed concerns about inhibited student learning growth during the disruption, were reports from students, teachers, and principals of consequent efforts at remediation when students had returned to school. Most teachers reported doing targeted teaching directed towards learning areas where learning was judged, on the basis of assessment information, to have been negatively impacted during the disruption (Table 4.6.4). Principals also reported that their schools had assessed their students’ academic performance during and after the COVID-19 disruption, and that targeted teaching was directed towards learning areas where student achievement had not progressed to the desired extent, or for students whose learning progress during the COVID-19 disruption was less than would have been expected. (Table 4.6.5). The majority of students reported that, when they had returned to school, teachers spent time reviewing the material that was covered during the COVID-19 disruption, and more207 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION than half of the students across all countries also reported that they rushed through a lot of new schoolwork (Table 4.6.2). Half or more teachers in all countries tended to agree that students were less engaged, less focused, and less efficient in class compared to how they were before the COVID-19 disruption (Table 4.6.3). On a positive note, when reflecting on their current situation (most students had returned to regular schooling), high proportions of students across many countries felt confident to engage in independent learning and learning self-management tasks. High proportions of students also felt well-prepared to learn from home if their school buildings were closed again in the future (Table 4.7.1), although this was typically endorsed more often by students from high Socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds and students living in urban areas than students from lower SES backgrounds and students living in rural areas (Table 4.8.8). Conclusion REDS was initiated to address the overarching research question: How were teaching and learning affected by the disruptions [caused by the COVID-19 pandemic] and how was this mitigated by the implemented measures, across and within countries? The information presented across this report, and synthesized in this chapter, provide the following insights. Many systems, schools, teachers, and students demonstrated remarkable flexibility, adaptability, resilience, and determination in rapidly adopting a broad range of alternative measures during the pandemic, that made it possible for teaching and learning programmes to continue. This required significant effort and was challenging for many people. Teachers’ workload typically increased, as a result of the need to adapt to new practices and many teachers worked outside their schools’ buildings, and with some level of environmental distraction. Teaching during the period of disruption focused relatively more on the core components of curricula, possibly at the expense of breadth within subjects, implementation of differentiated teaching and learning, and the use of some forms of practical activities. Assessment of student learning progress shifted towards being more formative, and reporting demands were sometimes lessened during the disruption. School leaders, teachers, and students generally agreed that student learning progress was inhibited during the period of altered arrangements to schooling. In addition, a significant percentage of schools in some countries did not offer any teaching and learning for considerable periods of time. Careful further monitoring is warranted into the nature and extent of the impact of the disruption on student learning progress overall, but also with respect to potential differential impacts of the impacts of student learning associated with aspects of relative student disadvantage. Schools made considerable additional efforts to support teachers, students, and their families, and placed increased priority on addressing the well-being of members of their school communities. These were recognized and appreciated by students and staff, who largely felt supported by their schools. Students expressed positive attitudes towards their return to regular schooling and were confident in their capacity to apply many of the independent learning capabilities that were required of them during periods of remote learning. Most also felt well-prepared to engage in remote learning should it be necessary again in the future. These findings were moderated slightly by aspects of social disadvantage. Schools and teachers felt it was difficult to address the needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged students during the period of disruption, and students from lower SES backgrounds and from rural areas expressed some lower confidence in their capacity to manage aspects of their schooling than those from higher SES backgrounds and urban areas. Further research and consideration is warranted into understanding the factors that both led to successful outcomes for some schools, teachers, and students, but also unsuccessful outcomes for others. The additional workload and stress for schools, teachers, and students during the period of disruption was managed, in part, through resilience and extreme effort. Whether such208 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION arrangements could be viable for longer periods, and what impact they would have on students, student learning progress, teachers and other members of school communities are questions that remain unanswered. References UNESCO. (2021). Education: From disruption to recovery. UNESCO https://en.unesco.org/covid19/ educationresponse UNDP. (2021). Human Development Index (HDI), UNDP, http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human- development-index-hdiAPPENDICES Appendix A1 Sampling information and participation rates Karsten Penon Sampling REDS was designed to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the educational system. The survey was based on national samples of students, teachers, and schools. The international sampling strategy was a two-stage stratified random sample design with schools as the first sampling stage, and students and teachers as the second sampling stage, respectively. Obtaining school samples The IEA followed two different strategies to obtain representative school samples from countries: countries who recently participated in an IEA survey used pre-existing samples or pre- existing lists of schools to select the REDS sample; for any other country, new school lists were provided and used as sampling frames for sample selection (see Table A1.1). For three countries, pre-existing samples could be used; one sample was selected based on a pre-existing school frame; and seven samples were selected based on newly provided school lists. For Denmark, the Russian Federation, and the United Arab Emirates, where samples or school frames for surveys implemented in 2018/2019 were used, it should be noted that the timespan between the creation of the school frame and the survey administration of REDS was longer than usual in IEA surveys. Country Strategy Burkina Faso New sample Denmark ICILS 2018 sample used Ethiopia New sample India New sample Kenya New sample Russian Federation TIMSS 2019 sample used Rwanda New sample Slovenia ICCS 2022 sample used United Arab Emirates New sample based on the frame of TIMSS 2019 Uruguay New sample Uzbekistan New sample Table A1.1: Obtaining school samples – strategies More information about the sample selections that were based on other surveys can be found in the respective Technical Reports: • ICILS 2018 Technical Report: Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2020). https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-reports/icils-2018-technical-report • TIMSS 2019 Methods and Procedures: Martin, M.O., von Davier, M., & Mullis I.V.S (2020).211 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/methods/index.html • The Technical Report for ICCS 2022 has not been published yet. As a reference, the Technical Report for ICCS 2016 is available: Schulz, W., Carstens, R., Losito, B., & Fraillon, F., (2018). https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-reports/iccs-2016-technical-report Sample selection In general, REDS used samples selected with a stratified two-stage probability sampling design. The first stage consisted of sampling schools, the second stage of selecting students and/or teachers within schools. In most countries, the selection probability of schools was proportional to the number of target grade students. For Rwanda, where only principals were asked to participate, a systematic random sample of schools was drawn. For Uzbekistan, the selection probability was proportional to the number of grade 4 students because the number of grade 8 students could not be provided in time. As in TIMSS 2019, Russia used a three-stage sampling design where in the first stage, regions were sampled, second, schools within these regions, and third, students and teachers within selected schools. In India, four stages were needed: 30 districts were sampled first, then one block within each district, seven schools within each block, and finally teachers within schools were selected. Exclusions Table A1.2 provides an overview of which types of schools were not covered by REDS. The percentages relate to the numbers of excluded students and schools. Numbers of teachers were usually not available prior to sample selection. Within sampled schools, it was possible to exclude students. It was expected that students with severe mental or physical disabilities or students who cannot understand the language of the questionnaire would not be able to participate. Teachers could not be excluded. In some rare cases, schools were excluded after they were sampled due to their incorrect eligibility status on the sampling frame. Final exclusion rates are presented in Chapter 3, Table 3.2. Stratification The variables used for stratification are shown in Table A1.3 Within-school sampling design Within participating schools, samples of students and teachers were selected. For the student survey, 20 students out of all grade 8 students were selected per school. In case there were fewer than 20 eligible students in a school, all of them were selected. Denmark and Slovenia decided to select a grade 8 class instead of students from across all grade 8 classes; within the selected class, all students were asked to participate. For the teacher survey, 20 teachers out of all teachers who had taught target population students during the reference period were selected per school. In many schools, there were fewer than 20 eligible teachers, and therefore, all of them were selected. The principal of each sampled school was asked to complete the school questionnaire. Achieved sample sizes The intended school sample size was a minimum of 150 selected schools. With 20 students and 20 teachers per school, REDS aimed for sample sizes of approximately 3,000 students and 3,000 teachers per country. However, due to non-participating schools, students, and teachers, the achieved sample sizes were mostly smaller. Table A1.4 gives an overview of the achieved sample sizes.212 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Burkina Faso Inaccessible due to security 2.4 3.2 Total 2.4 3.2 Denmark Very small schools 7.0 0.8 Special needs schools 5.1 1.4 Treatment centres 1.6 0.3 German, English, Waldorf schools 1.3 0.7 Total 14.9 3.1 Ethiopia Tigray 6.6 7.4 Total 6.6 7.4 India Total 0.0 0.0 Kenya Private schools 29.3 16.0 Total 29.3 16.0 Russian Federation Very small schools 7.1 0.4 Special needs schools 1.4 0.7 City of Moscow 2.7 8.5 Total 11.2 9.5 Rwanda Total 0.0 0.0 Slovenia Special needs schools 8.7 1.2 Private schools 1.2 1.2 Total 9.9 2.4 United Arab Emirates Very small schools 0.8 0.0 Special needs schools 0.1 0.0 Instruction language other than 2.0 1.1 English or Arabic Total 3.0 1.1 Uruguay Rural schools 9.1 0.8 Total 9.1 0.8 Uzbekistan Special needs schools 0.9 0.4 Private schools 0.5 0.3 Schools teaching in Karakalpak 1.1 0.6 Schools teaching in Russian 0.7 1.7 Schools teaching in other languages 2.7 1.1 Total 5.9 4.0 Country Table A1.2: School-level exclusions prior to sample selection Type of exclusion Note: Figures may not add up due to the conventions of rounding Excluded schools (% of all schools) Excluded schools (% of all students)213 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Country Strategy Burkina Faso Explicit stratification: funding (public, private) Implicit stratification: region (13 administrative regions) Denmark Explicit stratification: none Implicit stratification: national achievement score (low, lower medium, upper medium, high, missing) Ethiopia Explicit stratification: area (conflict areas Benishangul-Gumuz and Oromia, no conflict area); within no conflict area: urbanization (urban, rural), funding (public, private) Implicit stratification: region (11 regions or cities a); urbani-zation (urban, rural) India Explicit stratification: region (Central India, East India, Northeast India, North India, South India, Western India) b Implicit stratification: none Kenya Explicit stratification: urbanization (urban, rural) Implicit stratification: region (47 counties) Russian Federation Explicit stratification: region (Sankt-Petersburg, Moscow region, Nizhni Novgorod region, Samara region, Republic of Tatarstan, Republic of Bashkortostan, Krasnodar territory, Rostov region, Chelyabinsk region, Sverdlovsk region, Ke-merovo region, Krasnoyarsk territory, Republic of Dagestan, sampled regions) c Implicit stratification: none Rwanda Explicit stratification: funding (public, government aided, private) Implicit stratification: region (Northern Province, Eastern Province, Southern Province, Western Province, Kigali Prov-ince) Slovenia Explicit stratification: school size (small, large) Implicit stratification: none United Arab Emirates Explicit stratification: emirate (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, all other emirates); funding (public, private); within private schools in Abu Dhabi: curriculum (Ministry of Education, UK/US/CAD/AUS/International, other); within private schools in the other emirates: curriculum (Ministry of Education, UK/US/AUS/International/SABIS, other) Implicit stratification: none Uruguay Explicit stratification: funding (public, private); school type (CES, CETP, liceo privado); region (Montevideo, other de-partments) Implicit stratification: none Uzbekistan Explicit stratification: region (12 provinces, Karakalpakstan Republic, Tashkent City) Implicit stratification: urbanization (urban, rural) Table A1.3: Stratification variables Notes: a Sidama and Southern Nations, nationalities, and peoples have been combined. b Districts were primary sam- pling units. c Regions were primary sampling units; 13 regions were selected with certainty; the other sampled regions make up one other large explicit stratum for variance estimation purposes (Martin, von Davier & Mullis, 2020). n/a = not available.214 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C o u n tr y Ta bl e A 1. 4: S am pl e si ze s P ar ti ci p at in g sc h o o ls P ar ti ci p at in g sc h o o ls P ar ti ci p at in g te ac h er s P ar ti ci p at in g st u d en ts B u rk in a F as o 1 5 0 1 2 4 2  4 7 4 1 2 7 9 9 2 1 3 8 D en m ar k 1 5 0 6 4 1  4 3 1 6 6 4 5 8 6 0 E th io p ia 1 9 0 1 8 5 3  6 2 1 1 8 7 1  7 1 9 1 8 6 In d ia 2 1 5 n/ a n/ a 1 8 4 8 5 9 1 8 4 K en ya 1 5 0 1 0 3 1  5 7 0 9 5 7 7 3 1 0 2 R u ss ia n F ed er at io n 1 9 2 1 9 2 3  5 1 6 1 9 2 2  8 3 4 1 9 2 R w an d a 1 5 0 n/ a n/ a n/ a n/ a 1 4 9 Sl ov en ia 1 7 2 1 3 6 2  5 5 2 1 3 4 1  4 2 2 1 3 5 U n it ed A ra b E m ir at es 2 0 0 1 7 1 2  9 8 8 1 8 1 2  6 6 1 1 7 2 U ru gu ay 1 7 0 n/ a n/ a 9 9 7 1 3 1 1 3 U zb ek is ta n 1 5 0 1 4 9 2  9 1 1 1 5 0 2  5 7 3 1 5 0 St u d en t su rv ey Te ac h er s u rv ey Sc h o o l s u rv ey Sa m p le d s ch o o ls P ar ti ci p at in g p ri n ci p al s215 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Computing sampling weights and nonresponse adjustments Weights and adjustments were computed following standards specified in other large-scale assessments (Meinck, 2020), specifically those established in IEA’s International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS). Readers are advised to refer to Chapter 7 of the ICILS Technical Report (Fraillon et al., 2020) for details. Base weights For each sampling stage, a base weight has been calculated as the inverse of the sampling probability of the respective stage. The base weight therefore reflects the number of units that a sampled unit represents. Base weights have been calculated for the following sampling stages (variable names are presented in brackets): • Schools (stage one, in all three populations; WGTFAC1) • Classes (stage two, only for the student population; WGTFAC2S) • Students (stage three, only for the student population; WGTFAC3S) • Teachers (stage two, only for the teacher population; WGTFAC2T) In countries without class sampling, the base weight of classes has been set to one for all students. In countries with class sampling, the base weight for students is always one because all students in the sampled class were selected. Non-response adjustments For each sampling stage, an adjustment factor was calculated to consider non-response within the respective stage. This factor was computed as the number of sampled units divided by the number of participating units within specific adjustment cells (explicit strata for schools, teachers, and students). Adjustment factors were calculated for: • Schools (for the student population; WGTADJ1S) • Schools (for the teacher population; WGTADJ1T) • Schools (for the school population; WGTADJ1C) • Classes (only for the student population; WGTADJ2S) • Students (only for the student population; WGTADJ3S) • Teachers (only for the teacher population; WGTADJ2T) A school might be considered as participating in some, but not all, target populations. Therefore, the adjustment factor at school level can differ between target populations. A school was considered participating according to the following conditions: • For the student population: if at least half the students sampled in this school responded to the student questionnaire. • For the teacher population: if at least one third of the teachers sampled in this school responded to the teacher questionnaire. • For the school population: if the principal responded to the school questionnaire. Total weights The total weights are the products of all base weights and adjustment factors in each target population: • Students: TOTWGTS = WGTFAC1 x WGTADJ1S x WGTFAC2S x WGTADJ2S x WGTFAC3S x WGTADJ3S • Teachers: TOTWGTT = WGTFAC1 x WGTADJ1T x WGTFAC2T x WGTADJ2T • Schools: TOTWGTC = WGTFAC1 x WGTADJ1C All populations have been weighted independently. Total weights were used for estimating216 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION population parameters in this report. Computing participation rates Two sets of participation rates have been calculated. • unweighted participation rates, with all sampled units contributing equally, and • weighted participation rates, with all sampled units contributing proportionally to the target population that is represented by the units. For the student and teacher participation rates, the combined participation rates consist of two parts. • the school participation rates reflecting the share of participating schools, and • the student or teacher participation rates reflecting the share of participating students or teachers within participating schools. The participation rates of the three target populations have been computed independently; a school might count as participating in one or two target populations only, as explained above. Therefore, the school participation is different for each target population. Moreover, non- participating schools could be replaced by pre-assigned schools. Even though replacement schools were assigned in a way to share similar features with the sampled schools, bias risk increases with frequency of replacement. Therefore, participation rates were calculated without and with replacement. Country Burkina Faso 86.1% 86.1% n/a n/a Denmark 32.2% 43.0% 89.3% 38.4% Ethiopia 96.3% 97.9% n/a n/a Kenya 67.3% 68.7% n/a n/a Russian Federation 97.4% 100.0% 99.2% 99.2% Slovenia 74.4% 79.1% 87.8% 69.4% United Arab Emirates 89.1% 89.1% 90.3% 80.4% Uzbekistan 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.5% Table A1.5: Unweighted participation rates – student survey School participation rate (before replacement) School participation rate (after replacement) Note: "n/a": Within-school and combined participation rate could not be computed. See chapter 3 section "Within-school sampling" for further details. Student participation rate (within participating schools) Combined participation (after replacement) The participation rates for the three target populations are given in the tables below. Variance estimation For variance estimation, coherent with other IEA studies such as, for example, ICILS 2018 (Fraillon217 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Country Burkina Faso 86.1% 86.1% n/a n/a Denmark 32.1% 43.0% 90.0% 38.7% Ethiopia 96.3% 98.3% n/a n/a Kenya 67.3% 68.6% n/a n/a Russian Federation 96.8% 100.0% 99.2% 99.2% Slovenia 74.4% 79.1% 88.2% 69.7% United Arab Emirates 88.7% 88.7% 90.6% 80.3% Uzbekistan 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.5% Table A1.6: Weighted participation rates – student survey School participation rate (before replacement) School participation rate (after replacement) Note: "n/a": Within-school and combined participation rate could not be computed. See chapter 3 section "Within-school sampling" for further details. Student participation rate (within participating schools) Combined participation (after replacement) Country Burkina Faso 88.2% 88.2% n/a n/a Denmark 24.2% 44.3% 62.9% 27.9% Ethiopia 96.8% 98.4% n/a n/a India 79.0% 87.6% 99.0% 86.7% Kenya 62.0% 63.3% n/a n/a Russian Federation 97.4% 100.0% 98.2% 98.2% Slovenia 77.9% 82.6% 70.5% 58.2% United Arab Emirates 94.3% 94.3% 94.0% 88.6% Uruguay 57.6% 58.2% 47.0% 27.4% Uzbekistan 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9% Table A1.7: Unweighted participation rates – teacher survey School participation rate (before replacement) School participation rate (after replacement) Note: "n/a": Within-school and combined participation rate could not be computed. See chapter 3 section "Within-school sampling" for further details. Teacher participation rate (within participating schools) Combined participation (after replacement)218 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Country Burkina Faso 87.7% 87.7% n/a n/a Denmark 24.1% 44.3% 61.5% 27.3% Ethiopia 94.7% 98.0% n/a n/a India 80.3% 88.2% 99.3% 87.6% Kenya 60.7% 63.0% n/a n/a Russian Federation 94.1% 100.0% 98.1% 98.1% Slovenia 78.7% 82.8% 69.9% 57.9% United Arab Emirates 92.6% 92.6% 92.2% 85.4% Uruguay 57.1% 57.8% 50.5% 29.2% Uzbekistan 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.2% Table A1.8: Weighted participation rates – teacher survey School participation rate (before replacement) School participation rate (after replacement) Note: "n/a": Within-school and combined participation rate could not be computed. See chapter 3 section "Within-school sampling" for further details. Teacher participation rate (within participating schools) Combined participation (after replacement) Country Burkina Faso 95.8% 94.8% 95.8% 94.8% Denmark 26.0% 26.8% 40.3% 42.7% Ethiopia 96.8% 96.3% 98.4% 99.0% India 79.0% 80.4% 87.6% 90.7% Kenya 66.7% 65.2% 68.0% 67.4% Russian Federation 97.4% 92.8% 100.0% 100.0% Rwanda 98.0% 97.7% 99.3% 99.3% Slovenia 73.8% 73.8% 78.5% 77.7% United Arab Emirates 89.6% 92.9% 89.6% 92.9% Uruguay 65.9% 63.8% 66.5% 64.6% Uzbekistan 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table A1.9: Participation rates – school survey Unweighted school participation rate (after replacement) Weighted school participation rate (after replacement) Unweighted school participation rate (before replacement) Weighted school participation rate (before replacement)219 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION et al., 2020), the jackknife repeated replication method was used to compute sampling errors for any estimate. References Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (Eds.) (2020). IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018. Technical Report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-reports/icils-2018-technical- report Martin, M. O., von Davier, M., & Mullis, I. V. S. (Eds.) (2020). Methods and Procedures: TIMSS 2019 Technical Report. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/ timss2019/methods/index.html Meinck, S. (2020). Sampling, weighting, and variance estimation. In Wagemaker, H. (Eds.). Reliability and validity of international large-scale assessment. Springer International Publishing, p. 113-129. https:// timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/methods Schulz, W., Carstens, R., Losito, B., & Fraillon, J. (2018). International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016. Technical Report. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-reports/iccs-2016-technical-report220 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Appendix A2 Country summaries Agnes Stancel-Piątak, Emilie Franck, Alec I. Kennedy221 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C ou nt ri es R ef er en ce P er io d D at a co lle ct io n H ol id ay s (la st in g fo r m or e th an 1 d ay ) N at io na l Su m m ar y D oc um en ts a nd P ub lic at io ns pe ri od ex am in at io ns Ju ly -S ep te m b er Sh o rt h o lid ay s o f 1 0 d ay s at t h e en d o f D e- ce m b er A t th e en d o f M ar ch T h e go ve rn m en t in B u rk in a F as o r ea ct ed v er y q u ic kl y to t h e gl o b al h ea lt h c ri si s, c lo si n g sc h o o ls fo r a p er io d o f a ro u n d 7 .5 m o n th s. D u ri n g th is t im e, t h e n u m b er o f p o si ti ve t es te d ca se s w as s ta b le a t a lo w le ve l. C le ar p o lic ie s w er e cr ea te d o n h o w s ch o o ls s h o u ld r es p o n d t o t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n . To e n su re p ed ag o gi ca l c o n ti n u it y, s ev er al m ea su re s w er e re q u ir ed o r re co m m en d ed t o s ch o o ls s u ch a s sh o rt en in g sc h o o l v ac at io n s, p ro vi d in g ad d it io n al d ig it al r es o u rc es , an d p ro fe ss io n al d ev el o p m en t co u rs es fo r te ac h er s, a m o n g o th er s. T h e p ro vi si o n o f f o rm al s u p p o rt fo r th e d ev el o p m en t o f d ig it al r es o u rc es d id n o t ye t ex is t in B u rk in a F as o b u t w as in tr o d u ce d a s a re sp o n se t o t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n . M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n , L it er ac y an d t h e P ro m o ti o n o f N at io n al La n gu ag es . ( 2 0 2 0 , A p ri l 1 4 ). R es p o n se p la n fo r ed u ca ti o n al co n ti n u it y in t h e co n te xt o f C O V ID -1 9 . R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // p la n ip o lis .ii ep .u n es co .o rg /s it es /d ef au lt /fi le s/ re ss o u rc es /b u rk in a_ fa so _m en ap ln _c ov id .p d f Ju n e B u rk in a F as o M id -M ar ch t o O ct o b er 2 0 2 0 (7 .5 m o n th s) 2 8 A p r - 1 8 J u n 2 0 2 1 A u tu m n h o lid ay s: 1 0 O ct o b er - 1 8 O ct o b er C h ri st m as h o lid ay : 1 9 D ec em b er - 3 J an u ar y W in te r h o lid ay s: 1 3 F eb ru ar y - 2 1 F eb ru ar y E as te r h o lid ay : 2 7 M ar ch - A p ri l P en te co st h o lid ay : 2 2 M ay - 2 4 M ay T h e re fe re n ce p er io d in D en m ar k la st ed in t o ta l a ro u n d 2 .5 m o n th s (w it h a d d it io n al lo ck d o w n o cc u rr in g d u ri n g b o th 2 0 2 0 a n d 2 0 2 1 ) a n d c o n ce rn ed d if fe re n t sc h o o l g ra d es t o va ry in g ex te n ts . T h e n u m b er o f d et ec te d p o si ti ve c as es w as at a lo w le ve l d u ri n g th e fi rs t p h as e o f s ch o o l d is ru p ti o n , w h ile th er e w as a s u d d en b u t sh o rt in cr ea se d u ri n g th e se co n d p h as e. A s a d ec en tr al iz ed s ch o o l s ys te m , D en m ar k gr an te d sc h o o ls a g re at d eg re e o f a u to n o m y in h o w t h ey r es p o n d ed to t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n . S ch o o l l ea d er s co u ld d ev el o p th ei r o w n t ea ch in g an d le ar n in g p la n s fo r th e d is ru p ti o n t h at th ey fe lt w er e m o st a p p ro p ri at e fo r th ei r si tu at io n . W h er ea s so m e ed u ca ti o n s ys te m s n ee d ed t o d ev el o p IC T- re la te d re so u rc es d u e to t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n , s ch o o ls a n d fa m ili es in D en m ar k w er e al re ad y w el l- eq u ip p ed fo r re m o te le ar n in g b ef o re t h e cr is is . 1 M ar ch - 1 1 J u n e D en m ar k 1 6 M ar ch t o 1 8 M ay 2 0 2 0 (2 m o n th s) 1 4 D ec em b er 2 0 2 0 - 5 A p ri l 2 0 2 1 O n am ( 1 2 - 2 3 A u gu st ) – 1 0 d ay s (K er al a) D iw al i ( 5 - 1 0 d ay s) O ct o b er - N ov em b er D u ss eh ra (5 - 1 0 d ay s) O ct o b er C h ri st m as ( 5 - 1 0 d ay s) D ec em b er - Ja n u ar y A pa rt fr om th es e ho lid ay s, fe w st at es d ec la re w in te r h ol id ay s f or 7 -1 5 da ys , e sp ec ia lly th os e fa ci ng e xt re m e w ea th er c on di ti on s ( Pu nj ab , Ja m m u & K as hm ir ) E th io p ia r ea ct ed v er y q u ic kl y to t h e gl o b al h ea lt h c ri si s, sh u tt in g d o w n s ch o o ls a cr o ss t h e co u n tr y an d s w it ch in g to re m o te le ar n in g fo r al l s tu d en ts fo r a p er io d o f r o u gh ly 7 .5 m o n th s. T h e n u m b er o f p o si ti ve t es te d c as es w as a t lo w le ve ls a t th e b eg in n in g o f t h is p er io d a n d e xp er ie n ce d a n in cr ea se a n d fa ll to w ar d s it s en d . E th io p ia fo rm al ly s u p p o rt ed th e d ev el o p m en t an d u se o f s ev er al d ig it al r es o u rc es in r ea ct io n t o t h e C O V ID -1 9 o u tb re ak . M o re ov er , t h ey im p le m en te d a c le ar h yg ie n e p la n t h at s ch o o ls w er e re q u ir ed to fo llo w w h en r eo p en in g. In fo rm at io n n o t av ai la b le E th io p ia 1 6 M ar ch t o N ov em b er 2 0 2 0 (7 .5 m o n th s) 1 4 - 2 5 J u n e Se m es te r b re ak : 7 - 1 3 F eb ru ar y A n n u al b re ak : 8 J u ly - 1 2 S ep te m b er In d ia ’s e d u ca ti o n s ys te m is c h ar ac te ri ze d b y m an y d if fe re n t ty p es o f s ch o o ls (C en tr al ly -, St at e- , o r P ri va te ly -g ov er n ed ; C en tr al -/ St at e- o r se lf -f u n d ed ). C o n se q u en tl y, s o m e sc h o o ls h ad t o fo llo w g u id el in es a n d r u le s p ro vi d ed b y d if fe re n t au th o ri ti es w h ile o th er s h ad r el at iv el y h ig h er a u to n o m y. E ve n a s sc h o o ls c lo se d fo r a p er io d o f a p p ro xi m at el y 7 m o n th s, t h is v ar ie ty o f a u to n o m y re m ai n ed . H o w ev er , ad d it io n al g u id el in es a n d r u le s w er e p ro vi d ed b y th e M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n s p ec ifi ca lly a im ed a t h o w t o r es p o n d to t h e p an d em ic . D u ri n g th e sc h o o l d is ru p ti o n , t h e n u m b er o f p o si ti ve t es te d c as es r o se s ig n ifi ca n tl y u n ti l S ep te m b er an d s ta rt ed t o d ec lin e in O ct o b er 2 0 2 0 . A s sc h o o ls c lo se d an d a t ra n si ti o n t o r em o te le ar n in g o cc u rr ed , t h e u se o f m an y E d Te ch p la tf o rm s an d e -l ea rn in g ap p s in e d u ca ti o n al in st it u ti o n s in cr ea se d s u b st an ti al ly . H o w ev er , t h is a ls o d ee p en ed t h e d ig it al e d u ca ti o n d iv id e th ro u gh o u t th e co u n tr y as m an y st u d en ts d id n o t h av e th e m ea n s to a cc es s d ig it al m at er ia ls . S ev er al a ve n u es w er e th u s ta ke n t o c o n ti n u e le ar n in g d u ri n g sc h o o l c lo su re s, t h ro u gh o n lin e, t el ev is io n , ra d io , a n d p ap er -b as ed p ro gr am m es a n d m at er ia ls . D ep ar tm en t o f S ch oo l E du ca ti on a nd L it er ac y, M in is tr y of H um an R es ou rc e D ev el op m en t, G ov er nm en t o f I nd ia . ( 2 0 2 0 , J un e) . I nd ia R ep or t - D ig it al E du ca ti on . R et ri ev ed fr om h tt ps :// w w w .e du ca ti on . go v. in /s it es /u pl oa d_ fi le s/ m hr d/ fi le s/ In di a_ R ep or t_ D ig it al _ E du ca ti on _0 .p df G ov er nm en t o f I nd ia . ( 2 0 2 0 ). IC T in it ia ti ve s of M H R D , G ov er nm en t o f I nd ia . R et ri ev ed fr om h tt ps :// vn it .a c. in /w p- co nt en t/ up lo ad s/ 2 0 2 0 /0 2 /I C T- In it ia ti ve s- of -M H R D -G ov er nm en t- of -I nd ia . pd f G ov er nm en t o f I nd ia . ( 2 0 2 0 ). P R A G YA TA : G ui de lin es fo r D ig it al E du ca ti on . R et ri ev ed fr om h tt ps :// w w w .e du ca ti on .g ov .in /s it es / up lo ad _fi le s/ m hr d/ fi le s/ pr ag ya ta -g ui de lin es _0 .p df G ov er nm en t o f I nd ia . ( 2 0 2 0 ). SO P/ G ui de lin es fo r H ea lt h an d Sa fe ty p ro to co ls fo r R eo pe ni ng o f S ch oo ls a nd L ea rn in g w it h P hy si ca l/ So ci al D is ta nc in g. R et ri ev ed fr om h tt ps :// co vi d1 9 .in di a. go v. in /d oc um en t/ so p- gu id el in es -f or -h ea lt h- an d- sa fe ty -p ro to co ls - fo r- re op en in g- of -s ch oo ls -a nd -l ea rn in g- w it h- ph ys ic al -s oc ia l- di st an ci ng / G ov er nm en t o f I nd ia . ( n. d. ). V ik as pe di a. R et ri ev ed fr om h tt ps :// vi ka sp ed ia .in 8 - 1 1 J u n e I n d ia 2 4 M ar ch t o m id -O ct o b er 2 0 2 0 (7 m o n th s) 1 5 M ar ch - 3 0 M ay 2 0 2 1 Ta bl e A 2. 1: C ou nt ry su m m ar ie s222 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C ou nt ri es R ef er en ce P er io d D at a co lle ct io n H ol id ay s (la st in g fo r m or e th an 1 d ay ) N at io na l Su m m ar y D oc um en ts a nd P ub lic at io ns pe ri od ex am in at io ns Ta bl e A 2. 1: C ou nt ry S um m ar ie s ( co nt in ue d) A p ri l - M ay 3 w ee ks in A u gu st N ov em b er - Ja n u ar y Sh o rt ly a ft er t h e fi rs t co n fi rm ed p o si ti ve t es te d c as e o f C O V ID -1 9 w as r ep o rt ed in K en ya , s ch o o ls w er e cl o se d . A s a ce n tr al iz ed s ch o o l s ys te m , t h e go ve rn m en t o f K en ya p re p ar ed c le ar g u id an ce a n d p o lic ie s fo r sc h o o ls t o a d d re ss th e p an d em ic . S in ce n o IC T- re la te d r es o u rc es w er e im p le m en te d p ri o r to t h e p an d em ic , K en ya p ro vi d ed s ev er al d ig it al r es o u rc es t o s u p p o rt in st ru ct io n a n d le ar n in g o f st u d en ts d u ri n g re m o te le ar n in g. N ov em b er K en ya 1 6 M ar ch 2 0 2 0 t o [n o en d d at e p ro vi d ed ] 1 2 - 1 6 J u ly V ac at io n b y q u ar te rs F al l: 2 6 O ct o b er - 1 N ov em b er W in te r: 2 8 D ec em b er - 1 0 J an u ar y S p ri n g b re ak : 2 2 - 2 8 M ar ch S u m m er : 2 5 M ay - 3 1 A u gu st V ac at io n s by t ri m es te rs 1 st A u tu m n al : 5 - 1 1 O ct o b er 2 n d A u tu m n al : 1 6 - 2 2 N ov em b er N ew Y ea r' s h o lid ay s: 2 8 D ec em b er - 1 0 J an u ar y Fe b ru ar y: 1 5 - 2 1 F eb ru ar y Sp ri n g h o lid ay s: 5 - 1 1 A p ri l Su m m er h o lid ay s: 2 6 M ay - 3 1 A u gu st T h e sc h o o l d is ru p ti o n la st ed in t h e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n fo r le ss t h an o n e m o n th w it h r eg io n s al lo w ed t o e xt en d lo ck d o w n s, if n ee d ed . A s a ce n tr al iz ed s ch o o l s ys te m , t h e M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n o f t h e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n a n d t h e R u ss ia n F ed er al S er vi ce fo r Su rv ei lla n ce o n C o n su m er R ig h ts P ro te ct io n a n d H u m an W el lb ei n g, a lo n g w it h re gi o n al d ep ar tm en ts o f e d u ca ti o n , p ro vi d ed g u id an ce an d r es o u rc es t o s ch o o ls t o c o n ti n u e le ar n in g d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n . M an y im p o rt an t re so u rc es n ee d ed to s u p p o rt r em o te le ar n in g h ad b ee n a va ila b le p ri o r to t h e p an d em ic , h o w ev er , f o rm al s u p p o rt w as p ro vi d ed fo r th e d ev el o p m en t o f a d d it io n al d ig it al le ar n in g m at er ia ls . A ll m at er ia ls w er e m ad e fr ee ly a va ila b le t o t h e p u b lic o n lin e. Fe d er al S er vi ce fo r Su p er vi si o n o f E d u ca ti o n a n d S ci en ce (2 0 2 1 , A u gu st 1 6 ). O rd er N o . 1 1 3 9 o f 0 8 .1 6 .2 0 2 1 " "O n t h e m o n it o ri n g o f t h e q u al it y o f t ra in in g o f s tu d en ts o f e d u ca ti o n al in st it u ti o n s in th e fo rm o f a ll- R u ss ia n v er ifi ca ti o n w o rk s in 2 0 2 2 b y th e Fe d er al Se rv ic e fo r Su p er vi si o n o f E d u ca ti o n a n d S ci en ce ."" R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // fi o co .r u /fi o ko -n ew s/ % D 1 % 8 0 % D 0 % B 0 % D 1 % 8 1 % D 0 % B F % D 0 % B 8 % D 1 % 8 1 % D 0 % B 0 % D 0 % B D % D 0 % B 8 % D 0 % B 5 - % D 0 % B 2 % D 0 % B F % D 1 % 8 0 -2 0 2 2 -% D 0 % B E % D 0 % B E M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n o f t h e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n (2 0 1 9 , F eb ru ar y 1 1 ). T h e p as sp o rt o f t h e n at io n al p ro je ct “ E d u ca ti o n” h as b ee n p u b lis h ed . R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p :/ /g ov er n m en t. ru /i n fo /3 5 5 6 6 / M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n o f t h e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n (2 0 2 0 , M ar ch 1 7 ). E xe cu ti ve o rd er 1 0 4 o f M ar ch 1 7 , 2 0 2 0 “O n t h e o rg an iz at io n o f e d u ca ti o n al p ro ce ss in o rg an iz at io n s p ro vi d in g p ri m ar y ed u ca ti o n , c o m p u ls o ry a n d s ec o n d ar y ed u ca ti o n , im p le m en ti n g ed u ca ti o n al p ro gr am m es o f s ec o n d ar y vo ca ti o n al ed u ca ti o n , r es p ec ti ve a d d it io n al v o ca ti o n al t ra in in g an d ad d it io n al g en er al e d u ca ti o n al p ro gr am m es , i n t h e co n te xt o f a n ew c o ro n av ir u s in fe ct io n s p re ad in g o n t h e te rr it o ry o f t h e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n .” R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // d o cs .e d u .g ov .r u / d o cu m en t/ 7 5 0 d d 5 3 5 d 2 c3 8 b 2 a1 5 cd 4 7 c9 ea 4 4 0 8 6 e/ M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n o f t h e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n (2 0 2 0 , M ar ch 2 0 ). R ec o m m en d ed p ra ct ic es a n d g u id el in es c o n ce rn in g im p le m en ta ti o n o f e d u ca ti o n al p ro gr am m es o f p ri m ar y ed u ca ti o n , c o m p u ls o ry a n d s ec o n d ar y ed u ca ti o n a s w el l a s ed u ca ti o n al p ro gr am m es o f s ec o n d ar y vo ca ti o n al e d u ca ti o n , re sp ec ti ve a d d it io n al v o ca ti o n al t ra in in g an d a d d it io n al g en er al ed u ca ti o n al p ro gr am m es w it h t h e u se o f e -l ea rn in g an d d is ta n ce le ar n in g te ch n o lo gi es . R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // d o cs .e d u .g ov .r u / d o cu m en t/ 2 6 aa 8 5 7 e0 1 5 2 b d 1 9 9 5 0 7 ff aa 1 5 f7 7 c5 8 / M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n o f t h e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n (2 0 2 0 , N ov em b er 1 6 ). T h e Le tt er o f t h e M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n o f t h e R u ss ia n F ed er at io n o f 1 6 .1 1 .2 0 2 0 G D -2 0 7 2 /0 3 " "O n fo rw ar d in g th e re co m m en d at io n s" " (t o ge th er w it h " "P ra ct ic al g u id el in es (a d vi ce ) f o r te ac h er s an d d ep u ty h ea d t ea ch er s fo r cu rr ic u lu m an d d is ci p lin e in e d u ca ti o n al o rg an iz at io n s, p ro vi d in g p ri m ar y, ge n er al , c o m p u ls o ry a n d s ec o n d ar y ed u ca ti o n w it h t h e u se o f d is ta n ce le ar n in g te ch n o lo gi es .” R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p :/ /w w w . co n su lt an t. ru /d o cu m en t/ co n s_ d o c_ LA W _3 6 8 4 2 4 / T h er e ar e n o d efi n ed d at es R u ss ia n F ed er at io n 2 3 M ar ch t o 1 2 A p ri l 2 0 2 0 (3 w ee ks , w it h r eg io n s al lo w ed to e xt en d lo ck d o w n s, if n ee d ed ) 0 1 - 3 1 D ec 2 0 2 0223 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION C ou nt ri es R ef er en ce P er io d D at a co lle ct io n H ol id ay s (la st in g fo r m or e th an 1 d ay ) N at io na l Su m m ar y D oc um en ts a nd P ub lic at io ns pe ri od ex am in at io ns Ta bl e A 2. 1: C ou nt ry S um m ar ie s ( co nt in ue d) In fo rm at io n n o t av ai la b le T h e sc h o o l d is ru p ti o n p er io d s ta rt ed in R w an d a in M ar ch 2 0 2 0 . D u ri n g th e d is ru p ti o n , t h e M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n te am ed u p w it h s ev er al o th er a u th o ri ti es t o p ro vi d e p la n s fo r co n ti n u ed le ar n in g d u ri n g sc h o o l c lo su re s w h ic h la st ed n ea rl y 8 m o n th s. S ev er al r em o te le ar n in g o p ti o n s w er e p ro vi d ed t o st u d en ts , i n cl u d in g ra d io a n d t el ev is io n b ro ad ca st s as w el l as s ev er al o n lin e o p ti o n s. W h ile s o m e sc h o o ls h ad a cc es s to e- le ar n in g re so u rc es p ri o r to t h e p an d em ic , m an y o f t h es e re so u rc es h ad t o b e st re n gt h en ed t o s u p p o rt t h e tr an si ti o n to r em o te le ar n in g. It w as fu rt h er n o te d t h at IC T d ev ic es h ad to b e d is tr ib u te d t o t ea ch er s to e n su re t h ey h ad t h e ca p ac it y to o ff er o n lin e le ar n in g o p ti o n s w h er e n ee d ed . H o w ev er , t h e M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n n o te d t h at it w as u n ab le t o p ro vi d e al l sc h o o ls w it h d ig it al r es o u rc es fo r re m o te le ar n in g. In fo rm at io n n o t av ai la b le R w an d a 1 6 M ar ac h 2 0 2 0 t o N o - ve m b er 2 0 2 0 (8 m o n th s) 2 3 J u n e - M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n , R ep u b lic o f R w an d a (2 0 2 0 , A p ri l) . K ee p - in g th e d o o rs o p en fo r le ar n in g: R es p o n se p la n o f M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n t o t h e C O V ID -1 9 O u tb re ak . R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // w w w .m in ed u c. go v. rw /fi le ad m in /u se r_ u p lo ad /M in ed u c/ P u b lic a- ti o n s/ R E P O R T S/ E d u ca ti o n _S ec to r_ C O V ID _P la n _R w an d a. p d f M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n , R ep u b lic o f R w an d a (n .d .). S ch o o l r eo p en - in g: F re q u en tl y A sk ed Q u es ti o n s. R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // w w w . m in ed u c. go v. rw /fi le ad m in /u se r_ u p lo ad /M in ed u c/ P u b lic at io n s/ FA Q s/ 1 _F A Q S_ SC H O O L_ R E O P E N IN G .p d f A u tu m n h o lid ay s: 8 d ay s fr o m t h e en d o f O ct o b er u n ti l t h e b eg in n in g o f N ov em b er C h ri st m as /N ew Y ea r: 1 w ee k fr o m t h e en d o f D ec em b er u n ti l b eg in n in g o f J an u ar y W in te r/ C ar n iv al : 1 w ee k at t h e en d o f F eb ru - ar y u n ti l b eg in n in g o f M ar ch Sp ri n g h o lid ay s: 1 w ee k en d o f A p ri l a n d b eg in n in g o f M ay Su m m er h o lid ay s: 2 5 J u n e – 3 1 A u gu st T h e sc h o o l d is ru p ti o n in S lo ve n ia la st ed fo r ro u gh ly 3 m o n th s. D u ri n g th at p er io d t h e n u m b er o f r ep o rt ed C O V ID -1 9 c as es st ay ed r el at iv el y at a lo w le ve l ( es p ec ia lly c o m p ar in g it w it h t h e n ex t sc h o o l y ea r) . A s a ce n tr al iz ed s ch o o l s ys te m , S lo ve n ia ’s M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n a n d N at io n al In st it u te o f E d u ca ti o n p ro vi d ed g u id an ce a n d r es o u rc es fo r sc h o o ls t o c o n ti n u e le ar n in g d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n . M an y d ig it al re so u rc es h ad a lr ea d y b ee n a cc es si b le p ri o r to t h e p an d em ic , b u t su b st an ti al ly m o re w er e p ro d u ce d a n d m ad e av ai la b le sh o rt ly a ft er s ch o o ls w er e cl o se d . A s st u d en ts r et u rn ed t o sc h o o l b u ild in gs , s ev er al h ea lt h a n d h yg ie n e m ea su re s w er e ta ke n . F u rt h er m o re , n at io n al a ss es sm en ts , u su al ly p la n n ed fo r gr ad es 6 a n d 9 , w er e ca n ce lle d . S ch o o ls a n d t ea ch er s w er e gr an te d fl ex ib ili ty o n h o w a n d w h et h er t h ey w o u ld a ss es s st u d en t le ar n in g. M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n , S ci en ce a n d S p o rt a n d N at io n al In st it u te o f E d u ca ti o n , R ep u b lic o f S lo ve n ia (2 0 2 0 , M ar ch 1 3 ). R ec o m m en d at io n s to p ri m ar y an d s ec o n d ar y sc h o o ls fo r th e im p le m en ta ti o n o f d is ta n ce e d u ca ti o n . R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // w w w .g ov .s i/ n ov ic e/ 2 0 2 0 -0 3 -1 3 -p ri p o ro ci la -o sn ov n im -i n - sr ed n jim -s o la m -z a- iz va ja n je -i zo b ra ze va n ja -n a- d al ja vo / N at io n al In st it u te o f E d u ca ti o n , R ep u b lic o f S lo ve n ia (2 0 2 0 , A p ri l 1 6 ). D is ta n ce E d u ca ti o n in S p ec ia l C o n d it io n s. R ec o m m en d at io n s fo r K n o w le d ge A ss es sm en t in P ri m ar y Sc h o o l. R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // w w w .g ov .s i/ as se ts /m in is tr st va /M IZ S/ D o ku m en ti /N ov ic e/ K o ro n av ir u s- 1 3 -3 -2 0 /P ri p o ro ci la _o ce n je va n je -O S_ 1 6 0 4 2 0 2 0 .p d f 2 6 S ep te m b er - 7 O ct o b er 1 5 - 2 4 N ov em b er 1 4 - 2 3 M ar ch 1 3 - 2 2 J u n e S lo ve n ia 1 6 M ar ch t o 3 Ju n e 2 0 2 0 (3 m o n th s) 0 1 - 3 1 M ar ch 2 0 2 1 P u b lic s ch o o ls a n d m o st o f p ri va te s ch o o ls : W in te r b re ak : 1 2 - 3 0 D ec em b er Sp ri n g B re ak : 2 7 M ar ch - 1 4 A p ri l N at io n al D ay : 1 - 3 D ec em b er In t h e U A E , s ch o o ls w er e cl o se d fo r a p er io d o f a t le as t 1 0 m o n th s. T h e n u m b er o f p o si ti ve t es te d c as es r em ai n ed re la ti ve ly s ta b le d u ri n g th e st ar t o f t h is p er io d b u t b eg an t o ra p id ly r is e to w ar d t h e en d . A s a ce n tr al iz ed s ch o o l s ys te m , th e U A E ’s M in is tr y o f E d u ca ti o n p ro vi d ed p u b lic s ch o o ls w it h th e re so u rc es n ec es sa ry t o s u cc es sf u lly im p le m en t d is ta n ce le ar n in g w h ile s ch o o ls w er e cl o se d d u e to t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n . T h an ks , i n p ar t, t o a d ig it al le ar n in g p ro je ct s ta rt ed a fe w y ea rs p ri o r to t h e d is ru p ti o n , m an y p u b lic s ch o o ls h ad a n e as y tr an si ti o n t o d is ta n ce le ar n in g w it h t h e M O E p ro vi d in g ad d it io n al r es o u rc es w h er e n ec es sa ry . I n a d d it io n , ce n tr al a ge n ci es p ar tn er ed w it h e xt er n al p ro vi d er s to c re at e fr ee a n d a cc es si b le o n lin e le ar n in g p la tf o rm s so t h at a ll p u b lic an d p ri va te s ch o o l s tu d en ts c o u ld s u cc es sf u lly t ra n si ti o n t h ei r le ar n in g o n lin e. T h e ex te rn al p ro vi d er s al so c re at ed o n lin e p la tf o rm s to a llo w s ch o o ls t o s h ar e te ac h in g an d le ar n in g re so u rc es w it h t h ei r p ee rs . A s p la n s to r et u rn t o s ch o o l d u ri n g th e ac ad em ic y ea r 2 0 2 0 -2 1 w er e b ei n g m ad e, d et ai le d d o cu m en ts fr o m c en tr al a ge n ci es p ro vi d ed g u id an ce o n w h at te ac h in g m et h o d s w er e to b e u se d a n d w h ic h h ea lt h s af et y m ea su re s w er e to b e im p le m en te d . 2 6 S ep te m b er - 7 O ct o b er 1 5 - 2 4 N ov em b er 1 4 - 2 3 M ar ch 1 3 - 2 2 J u n e U A E 1 6 M ar ch L at e M ar ch 2 0 2 0 t o Ja n u ar y 2 0 2 1 (1 0 m o n th s) 2 1 D ec em b er 2 0 2 0 - 0 5 F eb ru ar y 2 0 2 1 A b u D h ab i D ep ar tm en t o f E d u ca ti o n a n d K n o w le d ge (2 0 2 0 ). A D E K ’s P ri va te S ch o o l R eo p en in g P o lic ie s an d G u id el in es (2 0 2 0 ). R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // ad ek .g ov .a e/ -/ m ed ia /P ro je ct /T A M M / A D E K /C O V ID 1 9 /A D E K -R eo p en in g- P o lic ie s- E N A si an p ri va te s ch o o ls : W in te r B re ak : 1 2 D ec em b er - 2 J an u ar y Su m m er B re ak : 7 J u ly - 2 9 A u gu st N at io n al D ay : 1 - 3 D ec em b er In fo rm at io n n o t av ai la b le224 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EDUCATION Ta bl e A 2. 1: C ou nt ry S um m ar ie s ( co nt in ue d) H o ly w ee k, w in te r b re ak : u su al ly t h e fi rs t 2 w ee ks o f J u ly Sp ri n g b re ak : 3 d ay s in S ep te m b er Su m m er b re ak : m id -D ec em b er t o M ar ch T h e re fe re n ce p er io d o f s ch o o l d is ru p ti o n in U ru gu ay la st ed fo r 4 m o n th s. D u ri n g th at t im e, t h er e w as a r el at iv el y lo w n u m b er o f p o si ti ve t es te d c as es , a lt h o u gh p o si ti ve c as e n u m b er s ro se r ap id ly in t h e fo u rt h q u ar te r o f 2 0 2 0 . A s a ce n tr al iz ed s ch o o l s ys te m , U ru gu ay ’s A N E P p ro vi d ed gu id an ce a n d r es o u rc es fo r sc h o o ls t o c o n ti n u e w it h t ea ch in g an d le ar n in g d u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n . U ru gu ay ’s P la n C ei b al h ad b ee n in p la ce s in ce 2 0 0 7 a n d a im ed t o in cr ea se an d im p ro ve t h e u se o f t ec h n o lo gy in e d u ca ti o n . D u ri n g th e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n , P la n C ei b al a d ap te d a n d s tr en gt h en ed it s d ig it al r es o u rc es fo r te ac h er s, s tu d en ts , a n d fa m ili es t o su p p o rt r em o te le ar n in g. S ch o o l b u ild in gs r em ai n ed o p en to p ro vi d e fo o d o r p ap er -b as ed le ar n in g m at er ia ls t o a ny st u d en ts in n ee d . U p o n r et u rn t o fa ce -t o -f ac e in st ru ct io n la te r in t h e ye ar , s ev er al p re ca u ti o n s w er e ta ke n t o e n su re th e h ea lt h a n d s af et y o f t ea ch er s an d s tu d en ts . E ve ry t h re e ye ar s ar o u n d O ct o b er U ru gu ay 1 6 M ar ch t o Ju n e 2 0 2 0 (4 m o n th s) 0 5 M ay - 1 1 Ju n e 2 0 2 1 C ou nt ri es R ef er en ce P er io d D at a co lle ct io n H ol id ay s (la st in g fo r m or e th an 1 d ay ) N at io na l Su m m ar y D oc um en ts a nd P ub lic at io ns pe ri od ex am in at io ns A u tu m n v ac at io n : 6 c al en d ar d ay s fr o m 4 N ov em b er W in te r va ca ti o n : 1 4 c al en d ar d ay s fr o m 2 8 D ec em b er Sp ri n g b re ak : 7 c al en d ar d ay s fr o m 2 1 M ar ch Su m m er v ac at io n : f ro m 2 6 M ay t o 1 Se p te m b er T h e sc h o o l d is ru p ti o n w as in tr o d u ce d in U zb ek is ta n a n d la st ed fo r 8 m o n th s. D u ri n g th e re fe re n ce p er io d , U zb ek is ta n ex p er ie n ce d a n u p w ar d t re n d in t h e n u m b er o f p o si ti ve te st ed c as es . A s a ce n tr al iz ed s ch o o l s ys te m , U zb ek is ta n’ s M in is tr y o f P u b lic E d u ca ti o n a lo n g w it h s ev er al o th er au th o ri ti es g u id ed s ch o o ls t h ro u gh t h e C O V ID -1 9 d is ru p ti o n . T h e M in is tr y o f P u b lic E d u ca ti o n h as c o n ti n u ed t o s u p p o rt th e d ev el o p m en t o f d ig it al m at er ia ls t o s u p p o rt r em o te le ar n in g. U zb ek is ta n c o n ti n u ed t o b e ac ti ve in r es p o n d in g to th e u rg en t si tu at io n a n d h as e m p h as iz ed s ev er al h ea lt h a n d sa fe ty m ea su re s to p re ve n t th e sp re ad o f t h e vi ru s in s ch o o ls . A s U zb ek is ta n m ov ed fo rw ar d in to t h e 2 0 2 0 -2 1 a ca d em ic ye ar , t h e M in is tr y o f P u b lic E d u ca ti o n b eg an im p le m en ti n g se ve ra l p ro je ct s su p p o rt in g th e p ro fe ss io n al d ev el o p m en t o f te ac h er s in u si n g IC T fo r ge n er al , p ed ag o gi ca l, co lla b o ra ti ve , an d c o m m u n ic at io n p u rp o se s, s u p p o rt in g st u d en ts t h at w er e fa lli n g b eh in d , a n d s u p p o rt in g sa fe a n d h ea lt hy w o rk en vi ro n m en ts . C ab in et o f M in is te rs o f t h e R ep u b lic o f U zb ek is ta n (2 0 2 0 , M ar ch 2 3 ). R es o lu ti o n o f t h e C ab in et o f M in is te rs o f t h e R ep u b lic o f U zb ek is ta n d at ed M ar ch 2 3 , 2 0 2 0 “O n a d d it io n al m ea su re s ag ai n st t h e sp re ad o f c o ro n av ir u s in fe ct io n .” R et ri ev ed fr o m h tt p s: // le x. u z/ d o cs /4 7 7 2 4 8 4 2 6 M ay t o 2 J u n e fo r 5 th , 6 th , 7 th , 8 th a n d 1 0 th gr ad es 2 6 M ay t o 1 5 J u n e to 9 th a n d 1 1 th gr ad es U zb ek is ta n 1 8 M ar ch t o F al l 2 0 2 0 (8 m o n th s) 1 5 M ar ch - 1 5 A p ri l 2 0 2 1Errata note This note lists the incorrect data spotted in the first edition of the International Report on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education, released on 24 January 2022. If you have any doubts about the errata listed here, please contact the IEA at [email protected]. Chapter Reference Issue Correction 4 Acknowledgements Figure 4.1.2 The data collection period shown in the figure is incorrect Late contributor not mentioned Data collection period changed to “14 Dec 2020 - 5 Apr 2021” Jonathan Linden added to the IEA team Table E1: International Report ErrataThe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education International evidence from the Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS) The Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS) is a joint study launched by IEA and UNESCO, in partnership with the European Commission to investigate how teaching and learning were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and how education stakeholders responded to the educational disruption, across and within countries. The REDS international report provides a systemic, multi-perspective, and comparative picture of the impact of COVID-19 on secondary education (eighth grade). The study collected data from countries, schools, teachers, and students spanning four continents, including Africa (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda), Asia (India, Uzbekistan), Arab region (United Arab Emirates), Europe (Denmark, Russian Federation, Slovenia), and Latin America (Uruguay). As education systems plan for recovery, they need data, evidence, and insights to inform policy. REDS offers an overview of schooling situations during the disruption in a variety of educational contexts around the world, providing policy-makers and education leaders with scientifically collected first-hand information for evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, REDS identifies effective approaches that emerged from the crisis and may serve as good practices for the future of education. With the support of: 9 789231 005022

IMAGES

  1. Research and Development on Therapeutic Agents and Vaccines for COVID-19 and Related Human

    write a report on covid 19 pandemic

  2. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how

    write a report on covid 19 pandemic

  3. Resources for Youth and Families During COVID-19 Pandemic

    write a report on covid 19 pandemic

  4. School at Home: Kids Share Experiences During Coronavirus Pandemic

    write a report on covid 19 pandemic

  5. Imposition notices of civil monetary penalty for failure to report COVID-19 data to NHSN

    write a report on covid 19 pandemic

  6. Part 1 of 5: COVID-19 Impact on College Student Mental Health

    write a report on covid 19 pandemic

COMMENTS

  1. Tips, Tricks & Essentials for Your Household During the COVID-19 Pandemic

    As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, finding the time to get kitchen supplies and taking care of your mental health can be more than challenging, but, amid everything, it’s essential that you do so.

  2. Everything You Need to Know About the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Many countries around the world have successfully managed and slowed outbreaks of the coronavirus and the illness it causes, COVID-19. However, this virus is still impacting countries and communities in an unpredictable way as infections co...

  3. How Are Curfews Helpful During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

    Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, state and local officials explored ways to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus without instituting long-term full lockdown measures. There were, of course, a few exceptions to that mindset in the U...

  4. Report Writing on COVID-19 for Students

    While plague, cholera and flu were pandemics of the past, the current COVID-19 pandemic has put the whole world in a fix. With the first case of COVID-19

  5. Report Writing on COVID-19 for Students

    Everyone has been instructed to stay indoors, wear masks, maintain hygiene, use sanitizers regularly, and consume a healthy diet. This pandemic

  6. Covid-19 Report

    The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world and our place within it – for us all as individuals, as well as for our nations and how they relate to one

  7. REPORT on the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and

    REPORT on the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and recommendations for the future (2022/2076(INI)) Special Committee on the COVID-19

  8. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Situation Reports

    ... COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 Monthly Operational Update reports on WHO and partners' actions in response to the pandemic. November 2023. 24 November 2023

  9. A Short Report on Covid-19 Pandemic

    PDF | Why is the mortality rate higher in developed countries? It is clear that the Coronavirus pandemic will remain on the world agenda for

  10. Draft Executive Summary The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on

    The report proposes elements of policy responses post COVID-19 that would help CCS recovery and. CCS's contribution to driving transformation. The focus

  11. COVID-19 Reports. Recommendations for the publication of official

    In the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, ECLAC is preparing a series of short publications with relevant policy recommendations. A number

  12. Technical report on the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK

    A technical report for future UK Chief Medical Officers,. Government Chief Scientific Advisers, National Medical. Directors and public health

  13. Report Writing on Covid 19

    Report Writing on Corona Virus | Report writing on covid-19 | Report Writing on Awareness Campaign on Covid 19 If you want to learn HOW to

  14. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education

    report writing. During that meeting, decisions were made about any