Related Links

• Learning Losses During the Pandemic
• Class Dismissed: The Economic Cost of Pandemic Learning Loss

Transcript

Tim Sablik: My guests today are Amanda Neitzel and Santiago Pinto. Amanda is an assistant research professor at the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University. Santiago is a senior economist and policy advisor in the Research department at the Richmond Fed. Thank you both for joining me today.

Amanda Neitzel: Thank you so much, Tim. It's great to be here.

Santiago Pinto: A pleasure to be here again, Tim.

Sablik: Today, we're continuing the conversation around learning losses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to education. Santiago, you were on the show in October of 2023 to discuss some of the evidence around pandemic learning losses. More recently, you and Amanda both participated in a District Dialogues event in November 2024 focused on this topic. We'll include links in the show notes to both the previous podcast episode and a video of the District Dialogues event. I definitely recommend listeners interested in this topic to check both of those out if you haven't already.

In your last appearance on the show, Santiago, we talked about some of the initial data on learning losses as measured by declines in math and reading scores among K-12 students. Since we last spoke, it's becoming increasingly apparent with the passage of time that these losses were not a one-time shock. Could you talk about what we're seeing when it comes to the persistence of learning losses? Amanda, please feel free to weigh in as well.

Pinto: The initial assessments that we discussed at that time revealed historic declines in math and reading scores, particularly for students in fourth and eighth grade. We were expecting such declines given the magnitude of the pandemic disruptions. However, we also see — at least with available data — that these scores have not yet recovered to pre-pandemic levels, even as students returned to traditional learning environments.

The data seems to show that some districts have made incremental gains, for instance, those that have been implementing certain kinds of remediation policies like high-dosage tutoring programs. But many students still remain months behind their pre-pandemic levels, especially in math, and this persistence seems to be more pronounced among under-resourced districts and vulnerable groups.

We can think of different reasons why these losses are still there. One is that learning is cumulative. This means that if we miss foundational skills in early grades, that might create obstacles later on to mastering advanced material. Second, there was an uneven return in in-person instruction. That meant that some students faced prolonged disruptions and chronic absenteeism, compounding their challenges. Finally, while there are several recovery efforts in place and they show promising results, the challenges of implementing these programs at a larger scale have limited their reach and their impact.

Neitzel: I completely agree with Santiago's assessment of the persistence of these learning losses. I also want to agree with him that the recovery hasn't been even across the board. Students who were already disadvantaged before the pandemic, or students of color, or those from low socioeconomic backgrounds have seen the least progress in recovering. This has further widened existing gaps, which is deeply troubling for equity in education.

But I'd also like to emphasize that much of the focus has been on getting back to pre-pandemic levels. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that those levels weren't exactly stellar to begin with. On the NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] or the Nation's Report Card, in 2019, only 35 percent of fourth graders, 34 percent of eighth graders, and 37 percent of 12th graders were proficient or higher in reading.

When we break this down by groups, the disparities are even more stark. Only 17 percent of black 12th graders, 25 percent of Hispanic 12th graders and 23 percent of 12th grade students eligible for the National School Lunch Program — which we use as a proxy for poverty — were proficient in reading. The pattern is similar in mathematics, with large and troubling gaps in achievement.

So, we should see this as an opportunity to aim higher and address those systemic inequities, not just try to reset to an already flawed status quo.

Sablik: I'd like to dig into that topic a bit more and discuss how the disruption from the pandemic has interacted with these longer running challenges and disparities in education that you mentioned.

Pinto: Let me re-emphasize what Amanda just said. The COVID-19 pandemic didn't just disrupt education temporarily. It magnified longstanding challenges and disparities that were already deeply embedded in the system. We got the pre-pandemic as a benchmark, but there were still a lot of issues at that time.

Before the pandemic, the students from low-income families were already facing significant barriers, such as they were attending underfunded schools and they didn't have access to enrichment opportunities.

Typically, parental resources play a critical role in supporting their children's education, and they were very instrumental in addressing learning losses during the pandemic. But they also have this other effect — they tend to exacerbate educational inequalities. Families with higher education levels, more flexible work arrangements, and greater financial resources were better and are better equipped to compensate for school disruptions by providing adequate technology, arranging tutoring, or even creating conducive learning environments. In contrast, parents who were already struggling — they often work multiple jobs and they lack the resources — struggle to meet basic educational needs.

The earlier evidence that Amanda was also pointing out seems to show that the pandemic has contributed to widening the achievement gap between students from different groups. That has an implication to increase the risk of student disengagement in learning and education, and it might lead to higher dropout rates and also diminish long-term opportunities.

There's also another dimension of inequality when you compare rural and urban areas. In rural communities, there's limited internet access and insufficient technological infrastructure that have left many students unable to participate in remote learning. Urban schools, especially in low-income neighborhoods, have to deal with overcrowding, with teacher shortages, and with insufficient student support.

Another thing that the pandemic has brought is unprecedented levels of stress, anxiety, and isolation, particularly affecting students who are already facing economic or social challenges before the pandemic. Many schools lack the counseling services necessary to address these issues and keep students engaged in learning.

Let me emphasize one thing. Why do we care about this educational disparity? Why are they relevant? We know education is a key pathway to social mobility, so not addressing educational disparities will very likely reduce upward mobility and perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequality, with long-term consequences and generating a greater dependency on social safety needs in the future.

Neitzel: I agree. You covered that very thoroughly.

I think many of the systemic structures that cause the inequity in the first place is also making it harder to implement those solutions that could help students do better. For example, Santiago has already mentioned high-impact tutoring. Some schools have more money and resources and capacity and find it easier to attract tutors to come work in their schools as tutors, whereas those rural schools struggle to staff those positions. The pandemic didn't create those disparities, but it certainly magnified them and it is continuing in this recovery period.

Sablik: Yeah, we're going to discuss some of those potential solutions in a moment. But I wanted to ask about another topic that came up during the District Dialogues event. It was mentioned that some of the negative effects that educators are seeing in schools, such as rising absenteeism, are starting to spill over into the workplace as students leave school and enter the labor force. Have either of you looked at the effects of education disruptions that stretch beyond the classroom? Amanda, maybe we'll start with you this time.

Neitzel: It's clear that the disruptions we've seen in schools don't exist in a vacuum. They ripple outward, affecting communities and ultimately the workforce.

Pinto: Definitely, I agree. That's a great observation and it highlights the broader ripple effects of the pandemic. We tend to think the COVID-related educational disruptions are only confined to the classroom environment, but they definitely have far-reaching consequences.

One clear consequence is what you just mentioned about this issue of chronic absenteeism. This pattern carries over as students join the job market — this normalization that students face in terms of using remote and hybrid attendance, where students could log in late and skip sessions. There weren't immediate consequences or repercussions of that. It also has shaped some attitudes around punctuality and reliability. Some employers are reporting some challenges with consistent attendance, especially younger hires. For entry-level positions, the onboarding [process] has become a lot more resource intensive.

We have also seen some skill gaps. The disruptions' impacts on learning and vocational training and internships left many students without the technical or practical skills they needed. At the same time, there's a lot of things happening at the workplace. There's a lot of change in workplace expectations. Students that were used to the flexibility of remote schooling, they tend to value more this flexibility in their jobs as well. This shift contributed to trends like what some people call the "Great Detachment." Employees feel less connected to traditional workplace structures.

Sablik: Turning to solutions and the topic of remediating some of these learning losses, Amanda, has the Center for Research and Reform in Education identified effective methods of reversing these types of learning losses?

Neitzel: At our center, we strongly advocate for evidence-proven models to address learning loss. Through our Evidence for ESSA [Every Student Succeeds Act] clearinghouse, we've identified a wide range of programs that have demonstrated effectiveness in areas like reading, mathematics, social emotional learning, attendance, and family engagement. Educational researchers actually know a great deal about what works to improve achievement and it's critical that we leverage this knowledge to support students.

One key point I'd like to emphasize is that we should think in terms of acceleration rather than remediation. Instead of trying to catch students up in the traditional sense, we should be focusing on helping them engage with grade-level content while filling in those critical gaps in knowledge and skills along the way. That approach not only keeps students motivated, but also sets higher expectations for their success.

When it comes to specific interventions, high-impact tutoring stands out as one of the most effective strategies, supported by a robust body of research. However, it's essential to be clear about what we mean by tutoring. High-impact tutoring isn't just homework help or on-demand support. It's structured, frequent, and intentional. It takes place during the school day, involves consistent pairing with the same tutor across at least three sessions per week, and uses well-trained, well-supported tutors who follow a well-designed, research-based sequence of lessons. When any of these components are missing, the effectiveness of tutoring is significantly diminished.

That said, implementing tutoring at scale is both expensive and logistically challenging. One emerging area of promise is virtual tutoring, which has rapidly expanded as an alternative to in-person tutoring. While virtual tutoring isn't a magic solution, recent research — including my own — shows that it can be effective when implemented well and including the same key components as effective in-person tutoring. This gives schools and districts a more flexible option, especially when in-person resources are limited.

Ultimately, the key to reversing learning losses lies in using what we know works, adhering to the evidence, and ensuring those interventions are implemented with fidelity.

Sablik: You mentioned that these solutions can be expensive or labor intensive to implement. Is there a role for local businesses and community leaders to help schools be successful?

Neitzel: Absolutely. Local businesses and community leaders are essential partners in ensuring the success of these acceleration strategies.

Their contributions can take several impactful forms. First is advocacy and awareness. Business and community leaders can use their platforms to champion evidence-based interventions such as high-impact tutoring. For example, the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education is advocating for high-impact tutoring at the state level, demonstrating how businesses can help influence policy and create systemic change, which ultimately benefits them in the form of better educated employees in the future.

Second, local businesses and community leaders can support the recruitment of tutors. Staffing is one of the largest challenges for most of these programs. There's some evidence that volunteer tutoring programs can work, especially when they follow those same evidence-based components of high-impact tutoring. But recruiting volunteers or even just full time tutors with the right training and capacity is key. Businesses and organizations can help schools connect with local talent pools, such as recent graduates or other people who aren't currently in the workforce but could be brought back.

The last thing is that, through partnerships with schools and other organizations, they can provide holistic supports that address students broader needs. I think this starts to get into some of what Santiago was talking about with issues of absenteeism. For instance, some of my past work was on evaluating a school-based vision program and it really highlights how these types of partnerships between higher ed, school systems, health departments, nonprofits, and for-profit businesses can really drive meaningful improvements in student learning and wellbeing.

Pinto: I completely agree with what Amanda is saying. The only thing that I will emphasize is about the commitment to participate and engage in these activities in the longer term. This is a long journey.

Sablik: Yeah. One thing that I know I've learned from talking with you, Santiago — and I think this came up in our last podcast conversation — is the research suggests there's a window of opportunity when it comes to implementing these solutions and remediating students who have fallen behind. Do we have a sense of what that window is, and is the window starting to close as we're getting further away from the pandemic?

Pinto: In my view, there is a window of opportunity to help students who have fallen behind. That window is not indefinite, so acting early is critical.

For instance, younger students are at a critical stage where foundational skills in reading and math are still developing. So, intervening early can have a compounding effect on their development.

For older students, remediation is a little more complicated, but it's no less critical. As I mentioned, learning is cumulative, so if you miss foundational skills like algebra or reading comprehension, that creates a domino effect that can hinder progress later on in the advanced coursework.

So, timely, targeted interventions are essential to ensure that these students are prepared for high school, for college, or even entering the workforce.

Neitzel: That was perfectly outlined. I was going to say one of those key challenges is that diminishing availability of resources. Early on, these recovery efforts were framed as a one-time push with additional funds and resources to help schools and students catch up. Now, we've reached the point where those funds are disappearing or already gone, but we haven't fully recovered. That leaves schools grappling with significant challenges without the means to address them effectively.

So, the window for action is still open, but the further we move from the pandemic, the harder it becomes to maintain focus and resources. It really requires a sustained investment in evidence-based strategies and a shift in the conversation from short-term recovery to long-term transformation and how we support and educate students.

Sablik: Amanda and Santiago, thank you both so much for joining me today.