Stop the cruel experiments on our children

Andreas Kluth

The world has been conducting an inadvertent socioeconomic experiment on young people, one that under normal circumstances would be forbidden as cruel and inhuman.

In the last two years, as part of efforts to control the pandemic, many countries have closed schools for some time. Some used this measure more, others less, and all did it in different ways. It is as if they set out to test what happens in the long run to individuals, societies and nations when some are deprived kids of Education.

It should be obvious how cruel and inhumane this is. The study subjects, that is, the children, never had the opportunity to participate or not participate. They simply found themselves in a certain country, school district, home and family, and then they will have to live with the consequences that, for many, will be dire.

Among those laying the groundwork for future research are Vera Freundl, Clara Stiegler and Larissa Zierow from the Ifo Institute in Munich, a center for economic studies. In a new study, they compare seven representative countries of the European Union: Poland, Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands.

At one extreme is Sweden, which became famous (or notorious, depending on your point of view) for refraining from imposing severe restrictions because of the coronavirus and keeping schools widely open. France and Spain, despite having horrendous outbreaks, also struggled to keep children in school: they restricted adult activities more strictly. Austria and the Netherlands implemented mixed systems, and the latter opted more for partial closures, for example, teaching in shifts. Germany and Poland kept the children at home longer.

In surveys, parents have confirmed that the more time children spend at home, the less time they spend learning. (Screens, in this context, are more often enemies than allies.) But it is not just the length of physical school closures that matters.

The quality varied as well, and that depended on the digital sophistication of countries as they entered the pandemic. In this group, Sweden topped the list and 80% of school principals said in surveys that they immediately had an online learning platform enabled. Germany was the furthest behind and only one in three directors said the same. The students showed similar differences. German children, in short, suffered doubly: in quantity and quality of teaching.

Comparing actual learning is more difficult. But it is obvious that children have big gaps, not only in reading and math, but also in social and creative skills. At my children’s school, several teachers have told me that children in particular have noticeably poorer fine motor skills, because during online education they spent a lot of time typing and very little handwriting.

A Dutch study showed that closures in the Netherlands in the spring of 2020 led to a learning loss equivalent to 20% of the academic year, or exactly the period that children stayed at home. You can extrapolate the loss in countries that closed schools the longest and were not as good at teaching online.

The same study revealed that academic losses were 60% worse for children from less-educated households, typically lower-income families. And that’s in the Netherlands, where society is relatively egalitarian. Children from poor households have slower broadband (if they have any), fewer and older devices, and often parents who don’t feel confident about being able to support technology or academics.

The most interesting pedagogical question for me is whether we, teachers, parents, legislators, can help children compensate for these losses. In some cases, the answer is yes. France has apparently closed the gaps in reading and math resulting from early school closings, at least for students from more educated families. But in many cases, especially when it comes to poorer children, it will be difficult.

But there are other questions to ask. We know that many children also began to suffer from chronic depression and anxiety during the closings. Inevitably, the closures, therefore, also incited future ills such as epidemics of psychological disorders and drug abuse. How much will these problems increase?

We also know that children who learn less will achieve and earn less. How much income will they lose in their lifetime? A greater part of them will be unemployed or underemployed and will have to depend on government benefits. How many more?

Fewer will do advanced research and start new companies. What great things will never be invented? Inequality will increase as children from privileged families will make up for their learning loss and those from poor households will lag further behind. How many of them will fall prey to the populists, from the extreme left or the extreme right?

Of one thing I am sure: the socioeconomic effects of school closures, the epidemiological justification for which is unclear, will last much longer than SARS-CoV-2 itself. All things being equal, it seems safe to assume that the world’s Swedes will fare better than the Germans, in many ways.

Since this pandemic is far from over, let us stipulate the following: First, education is the greatest blessing available to individuals and societies alike, along with health, so never waste it again. Second, if you are not yet assimilating the digital world, it should not be in the area of ​​education. And third, if you ever need to do another unintended socioeconomic experiment, do it with voting adults, not children.