Previous articles in this series have examined the impact of COVID-19 on education in England, and on vulnerable children across the world. This article examines the ways in which the government, schools, parents and families have responded to school closures and online learning in England. I will focus on England as education is a devolved responsibility in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Government’s response

By 20th March 2020 all English schools and most universities were closed, affecting over 11 million young people. Commendably, English schools remained open to the children of ‘key workers’ and for ‘vulnerable’ children, defined as those children with a social care worker or an educational, health and care plan for special educational needs. By the end of March, GCSE and A-Level exams were cancelled, replaced by teacher assessments, and the government had launched a (highly controversial) voucher scheme for those children who would have accessed free school meals.

In April 2020 the government focussed on increasing access to online learning, on 24th April promising to spend £85 million on 200,000 laptops, £14 million on technical support for Google and Microsoft ‘Edtech’ platforms, £6 million on ‘Edtech demonstrator schools’ and launching the Oak National Academy online school.

At the time of writing, amid intense debate, the government has given up on its plan to send primary school children back to school before the summer holidays. Some parents and teachers unions have criticised the governments ‘chaotic’ reopening plans, arguing that social distancing measures would be impossible to enforce in busy classrooms. By contrast others cite evidence that there has been no spike in the virus since schools have reopened across Europe and on 12th June the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, warned that, ‘a generation of children will suffer if our schools stay shut’ (Yorkshire Post).

Many of these policy responses are typical of responses worldwide. Governments have prioritised access to online learning (providing devices, infrastructure and content) with less emphasis on quality, teacher support and safeguarding. They have focussed on high-tech solutions but have been constrained by a ‘digital divide’ that has meant some of the most disadvantaged children have been unable to learn online. Similarly reopening schools has been controversial in several countries, though children are back at school in much of Europe. Overall, the response is emerging from the ‘emergency’ phase, with the increasing need for policies that address the educational inequalities that COVID-19 has exacerbated.

Schools’ response

‘what strikes me most of all is the lack of consistency’

School responses have varied widely. On 3rd June, Anne Longfield stated: ‘what strikes me most of all is the lack of consistency.’ This is evident between private schools and the state sector, she observed, but also within the state sector. This lack of consistency was apparent in several interviews I conducted. A parent in West Yorkshire said that their normally ‘excellent’ school had provided no teaching at all, and only homework on ‘a rubbish app’, and a student at a Yorkshire grammar school described online school as ‘an hour on Google a day’. By contrast a teacher from London told me how her ‘tech-savvy’ school were providing the same lessons, timetable and curriculum as if school had never closed.

For particular pupils, online learning has been a success. Older, brighter pupils have enjoyed the freedom to learn at a faster pace. As a London teacher told me these children ‘haven’t had to wait for the less able children’ whereas children who would normally need more teacher support have struggled.

The shortcomings of online learning have also become clearer. Disadvantaged children have been left behind (see previous articles) while the OECD suggested that 700,000 English children had no access to technology and were not learning anything. As the lockdown has worn on those children that have had access have shown decreasing levels of ‘online engagement’.

Some schools have struggled to provide pastoral care online. As a London teacher put it, ‘it is much easier to read a kid in a lesson’. But her school adapted, developing online pastoral care tutorials. By contrast a West Yorkshire parent said their school had provided ‘zero pastoral care’, not even a phone call, in two months.

Finally, mass online learning has raised concerns about privacy and the educational technology being used. As Human Rights Watch (27th March 2020) has noted, most countries do not have legislation that protects children’s educational data. As multiple lawsuits against educational tech providers show (see cases against UCAS (UK), Dingtalk (China) and Google (US)), there is a still a long way to go before ‘Edtech’ can be safely integrated into school provision.

Teachers’ response

The widespread use of online learning has confirmed that ‘Edtech’ should support teachers rather than replace them. Some features of online learning have made teachers’ lives easier. Francesca David a Key Stage 3 teacher writing on techuk.org praised Google Classroom as it enabled her to co-write documents with her pupils in real time and provide instant feedback. But not all teachers are ‘tech-savvy’ and some subjects are easier to teach online than others. I interviewed an English teacher who had had to change her teaching style from discussion-based to lecturing, an adjustment that her A-level English class regretted. Overall, those teachers that I spoke to who taught older pupils and university students said online teaching worked well, whereas those teaching younger children struggled to engage them.

Families’ response

School closures have hugely increased the burden on parents. A parent in West Yorkshire told me:

‘The biggest shift has been for us [parents]. The extra demands on us are massive…We’ve realised we’re basically on our own for the foreseeable’.

This appears true worldwide. A parent in Santiago, Chilé told me:

‘The reality of many parents is that we are trying to fulfil the commitments of our jobs and taking care of the kids at the same time…it’s just too much, it’s just become impossible.’

In both these cases these are highly educated parents in two-parent families. For single parents, with less education, in low-income groups, the demands of home schooling will only be greater.

Conclusions

COVID-19 has exposed the strengths and weaknesses of education systems. Some English schools were far better able to adapt to online learning than others, reflecting inequalities that have existed for decades. For older, more independent pupils, online learning may be a welcome taste of university, whereas for younger children in need of more human engagement and stimulation it has been inadequate and placed a huge burden on parents. Some government ‘emergency measures’, such as allowing vulnerable and special needs children the option to remain in school, were highly commendable. But the most urgent work is yet to come. There is a pressing need to evaluate whether closing schools was worth the educational cost, and whether they should be closed again if the virus spikes in the future. Crucially, future responses must address the damage to children’s education, rising youth unemployment and the potential ‘cascade of educational injustice’ that COVID-19 has unleashed. I will explore some solutions to these challenges in my next article.