2023 Brought More Evidence That Pandemic School Closures Damaged Students
Post-COVID educational declines are here to stay.

In the years following extended school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence has only grown that American schoolchildren have suffered tremendous learning losses from months spent in online learning. Test scores—and school attendance rates—are still far below pre-pandemic levels.
Over the past year, increasing evidence has emerged of just how badly school closures damaged American schoolchildren. Here's what we learned in 2023.
1. Online learning was linked to lower test scores.
According to a study published in June, students who spent more time in online learning were more likely to fail state standardized tests. The study, published in American Economic Review: Insights, examined the results of 11 state tests given to children in grades 3–8. The study found that between 2019 and 2021, pass rates saw substantial declines. On average, pass rates declined 6.8 percentage points for English language arts and 12.8 percentage points for math.
However, in-person learning significantly cushioned the decline. "Offering fully in-person learning, rather than fully virtual learning, reduced pass rate losses by approximately 13 percentage points in math and approximately 8 percentage points in," wrote the study's authors.
2. Half of American students are now performing below grade level.
In May, a report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) cited a survey that found that, on average, American public schools reported that 49 percent of their students were below grade level in at least one subject area in the beginning of the 2022–23 school year. Before pandemic school closures, schools said that 36 percent of their students were behind on average. The declines hit elementary and middle school students hardest, with schools reporting 14- and 15-point increases in the percentage of students behind a grade level respectively. In contrast, high schools reported only a 9 percent increase in struggling students.
3. School closures accelerated a decline for 13-year-olds.
In June, the NCES released new test data indicating that school closures steepened an already existing educational decline among 13-year-olds. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress long-term trend (LTT) test, performance among American 13-year-olds dipped to the lowest point in decades. declines Reading scores were brought to their lowest point since 1975 and math scores to their lowest point since 1990. Student performance had already been modestly declining since 2012. The pandemic appeared to rapidly increase this negative trend.
"The 'green shoots' of academic recovery that we had hoped to see have not materialized," NCES Commissioner Peggy G. Carr said press release in June. "There are signs of risk for a generation of learners in the data we are releasing today and have released over the past year."
4. Thousands of students still haven't returned to classrooms.
Well after most pandemic-era school closures had ended, thousands of American schoolchildren were still "missing" from classrooms—meaning they weren't enrolled in local public schools but hadn't moved to another school district, enrolled in a private school, or began homeschooling. A shocking 230,000 kids were still missing from schools in fall 2021, according to a February data analysis of 21 states. In December, additional data analysis from 22 states found that 50,000 kids were still absent a year later in fall 2022.
5. Learning loss is a global trend.
Results from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test, released in December, show that the United States is far from the only nation whose students have suffered devastating educational declines following the COVID pandemic. In fact, among comparable countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), American students actually performed fairly well.
The test measured 15-year-olds' reading and math skills. And while U.S. math scores still dipped a dramatic 13 points on the test, the average decline among OECD countries was 17 points. And—in contrast with national data suggesting large declines in reading—American students' reading scores declined a single point, while the OECD average dropped 9 points.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Government schools damage students. End taxpayer nonconsensual funding of education.
So, I give Emma Camp a hard time on many, many of her articles. But this one's perfectly fine.
Yeah, but what's her point? It begs the question. I'd rather see more articles here on how forced public schooling hurts our children than how not being forced to attend for a while hurts them.
What is your argument against forced public schooling?
Force. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. One size fits all, Pro-State curricula.
So end the federal Education department, the CDC, the NIH, and watch test scores soar.
Isn't it obvious? They died from COVID, the most deadly virus ever.
No, they were kidnapped and killed in demonic pizza parlors.
Biggest damage from school closures: the number of requests for gender reassignment dropped by 90%.
At this point, I would not consider it a violation of the NAP if parents decided to hang public health officials and teachers union leadership by their ankles in the public square and treat them like a piñata.
I'm not suggesting they should do that, I'm just saying, I would understand.
Sarcasmic is in the other thread right now defending Australian Covid internment camps.
https://reason.com/2023/12/27/how-fdr-emasculated-the-black-press-in-world-war-ii/?comments=true#comment-10374004
The more people take the kids out of the public schools the better off everyone will be, especially the kids.
Too bad the Republicans here are too panicked about trans women reading books to children to do anything about public schools.
That's not true. They're making active effort to ensure that adult activities won't happen in schools.
The fact that you aren’t totally disturbed by trans people reading to children while in offensively ostentatious drag tells me you aren’t to be trusted around children. How sick are you? What if someone dressed in Klan gear and read to children. Would that bother you? What if I, a white woman, dressed as a black person and read to children. Would blackface bother you? Maybe just let the librarians read to the kids and stop turning everything into a freak show.
Perhaps worse than the decline in scholastic performance by COVID Kids will be the long-term effects on their mental and emotional health. We have kids entering elementary school who spent critical developmental years isolated within their own immediate household, or, when allowed out in public, were surrounded by adults and peers with their faces covered, "socially distanced", with places for normal interactions like playgrounds and day care shut down. Were they aware that many adults regarded them with fear? They must be suffering developmental delays from this, and likely permanent damage to their communication and social interaction abilities.
In my experience with the older kids, the biggest psychological issue teens and early 20 somethings are dealing with is the realization that none of this matters. Their job, their education, all the hoops they’ve been told to jump through-none of it actually matters. Good for them. It never did and I wish I had known that when I was 19.
An article which considers only the adverse impacts really merits no consideration. Hindsight cannot substitute for foresight. Any prediction that the losses can never be made up rather serve as impetus for greater advances is self-serving and without evidence. It's easy to take pot shots at people who were dealing with a worldwide epidemic and whose first thought was to save as many lives as possible, knowing that the first step in progress is survival.
Thank you for the insight, ChatGTP.
Agree. Actually measures should have been MUCH tighter. SARS has been around for a long time already and there have been earlier outbreaks and we knew the danger. All borders between all countries should have been closed immediately - a lot of deaths could have been prevented. Measures taken came too few, too late.
Not so:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/04/covid-19-lockdowns-less-effective-new-research-inquiry/
The lockdowns were an ineffective failure, deal with it.
Sure, if you believe newspaper rubbish.
Every person with a logical mind understands that lockdowns, meaning less contact between people, means less infections.
I don't intent to argue with you over this fact...
I ignored the mass media on the whole because they usually like panic and their science reporting is...bad. The newspaper was picked probably because it was figured out that The Telegraph was about your speed.
Lockdowns were a failure & were known from Day 0 to be ineffective; there were piles of papers on that at the time. Quarantines are still the better option, but people got a bug up their ass about the idea of only restricting people known to be infectious. As for more aggressive measures working...some of those actually would have been effective, but probably not done soon enough due to the overall refusal recognize and deal with China's well-known shoveling of BS when it comes to public health Fun...which has been known about since SARS. (Their basic plan is "Deny everything until the problem is too big for people to miss, then minimize.")
The longer term research has tended to show that Sweden's plan really was to just front-load their COVID deaths--and that this worked & prevented the knock-on effects in excess deaths from tangential causes. Think things like poverty, health issues caused by social isolation -- there is a reason it's been called torture when done to prisoners -- and deaths from deferred diagnosis and treatment of diseases... But I don't expect people to generally be willing to admit that they were for torturing people because they got scared by a virus that we have many reasons to expect to become the 2nd documented drop of a new cold virus. (This would be the 6th major strain and the first to drop when we had the tools to be able to prove it solidly; the 5th one dropped in the 19th century.)
On the other hand, just as lockdowns were starting, a breakout of the plague in China had just hit the point where they admitted it was happening, so...
We can keep nagging about this, but it was inevitable, period.
Take The Netherlands, our country closed schools and made masks obligatory: 1,308 deaths per million
Sweden took much less measures, death rate: 2,438 BIG difference.
And even if Sweden had fared better, that would all be just hindsight knowledge. A very dangerous virus was circulating, no-one knew for sure where all was heading, so it is only logical that severe measures were taken.
You left out these facts:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/13/sweden-right-covid-along/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/21/swedens-resistance-lockdowns-vindicated/
Britain had lockdowns that were comparable to the Netherlands, and saw worse numbers than Sweden. How do you explain that?
You've been deceived, Bryce. You can repent.
I prefer science over newspaper rubbish:
"The UK and Sweden have among the worst per-capita COVID-19 mortality in Europe. Sweden stands out for its greater reliance on voluntary, rather than mandatory, control measures. We explore how the timing and effectiveness of control measures in the UK, Sweden and Denmark shaped COVID-19 mortality in each country, using a counterfactual assessment: what would the impact have been, had each country adopted the others’ policies? Using a Bayesian semi-mechanistic model without prior assumptions on the mechanism or effectiveness of interventions, we estimate the time-varying reproduction number for the UK, Sweden and Denmark from daily mortality data. We use two approaches to evaluate counterfactuals which transpose the transmission profile from one country onto another, in each country’s first wave from 13th March (when stringent interventions began) until 1st July 2020. UK mortality would have approximately doubled had Swedish policy been adopted, while Swedish mortality would have more than halved had Sweden adopted UK or Danish strategies. Danish policies were most effective, although differences between the UK and Denmark were significant for one counterfactual approach only. Our analysis shows that small changes in the timing or effectiveness of interventions have disproportionately large effects on total mortality within a rapidly growing epidemic."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9
https://fee.org/articles/3-studies-that-show-lockdowns-are-ineffective-at-slowing-covid-19/
https://unherd.com/thepost/nature-magazine-has-lost-its-way/
I'd rather have actual studies instead of an activist outlet masquerading as science. The actual studies have shown that the lockdowns have failed. You've been deceived; wake up.
Since when are think tanks citing only studies that serve their opinion "science"?
If you believe that less contact between people doesn't lead to less infections, you probably also believe earth is flat.
Another source of Sweden's vindication:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/more-data-vindicate-swedens-hands-off-pandemic-approach
I'm not sure what this article is in aid of. Most libertarians would like to believe that choice in education modalities is better from a freedom of choice point of view and also justified by improved outcomes. Obviously, COVID lockdowns are not free of entangling factors in terms of educational outcomes, but taking at face value that online learning caused a decline in standardized test performance would be indirect evidence that the public school model (as bad as it obviously is) is better than at least one alternative modality (online learning.) I think there was a wealth of evidence before the COVID lockdowns that this is NOT the case, so it puts into question what the value of this article might be.
Equally, the article is talking about a "learning loss".
I don't know about the US, but here in the Netherlands a "learning loss" started more than 30 years ago, long before COVID. This learning loss is caused by many reasons, one of them being the digitalization of schools. Maybe a topic for another articke by Reason?
Well, https://ogomed.com/product/durolane-60mg-3ml/ seems to be a spam link, doesn't it?