Pay attention to whatever Yong Zhao writes. He is among the very top tier of educational thinkers in the world. I always learn when I read his work.
This post warns parents, teachers, and policy makers to beware the “learning loss” rhetoric. It is a trap, he says.
He writes:
A dangerous trap exists for educators and education policy makers: the learning loss. This trap comes with a large amount of data and with sophisticated projection methods. It presents a stunningly grim picture for education and it invites educators and policy makers to make wrong decisions and invest in wrong things. The article identifies a number of undesirable outcomes that their concerns could lead to. It also suggests several productive actions when the pandemic is controlled and schools reopen.
The trap is the so-called learning losses during the Covid-19 pandemic. A number of organizations and individuals have put out various estimates about what students have lost due to school closures and remote learning during the pandemic. For example, the global consulting firm McKinsey produced two reports about these learning losses. As late as December 8, 2020, McKinsey said, “Students, on average, started school about three months behind where we would expect them to be in mathematics” and “Students of color were about three to five months behind in learning; white students were about one to three months behind” (Dorn et al. 2020). The Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO 2020) at Stanford University issued a press release stating that “the average estimates of how much students lost in the Spring of 2020 ranged from 57 to 183 days of learning in Reading and from 136 to 232 days of learning in Math” (para. 2). Other organizations, such as the assessment company NWEA (Kuhfeld and Tarasawa 2020) and the Annenberg Institute at Brown University (Santibanez and Guarino 2020), have also published reports about learning losses. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published a projection for the economic losses due to learning losses as $14 trillion over the next 80 years (Hanushek and Woessmann 2020).
These estimates have caught the attention of policy makers and educators. Governments, school leaders, and teachers are all concerned about the learning loss students may experience due to the Covid-19 pandemic. After all, schools have been seriously disrupted, as have students and their families. The pandemic has, in more ways than one, significantly affected learning and school operations. It seems only natural to want to know the extent of the learning loss students have experienced and then take actions to hopefully make up for the losses.
Possible mistakes
This is wherein the trap lies. There is nothing wrong with making estimates about learning losses, but the possible actions these projections can induce are worrisome because they can, at best, waste resources and, at worst, lead post-pandemic education in the wrong direction. The concerns of educators and policy makers are to be expected, but these policy makers could end up investing in unproductive educational efforts. Below are a number of undesirable outcomes that their concerns could lead to.
Governments may decide to launch standardized assessments to track students’ learning losses. It is possible that educational policy makers may be so interested in learning the extent of loss experienced by students that they will use standardized testing to assess all students. The desire to know the overall extent of loss and what achievement gaps may exist between different groups of students is completely understandable, but standardized testing can be the worst way to collect such data for two major reasons.
First, any standardized testing given to all students will have a typically limited scope, with a focus on math and reading. In other words, what will be measured is not the entirety of students’ learning but a small piece of their overall education. Even assuming that the assessments are highly accurate (which they are not), they would miss other equally and perhaps more important aspects of learning, such as confidence, self-determination, creativity, entrepreneurial thinking, and other subjects.
Education has many desirable outcomes (Zhao 2017, 2018b). These outcomes can be short term or long term, cognitive and non-cognitive, and instructional and educational. Short-term, cognitive, and instructional outcomes do not necessarily translate directly into long-term, non-cognitive, and educational outcomes. For example, test scores have often been found to have a negative correlation with students’ confidence and well-being (Loveless 2006; OECD 2019; Zhao 2018b). Test scores have also been found to have a negative correlation with economic development and entrepreneurial confidence and activities across (Baker 2007; Tienken 2008; Zhao 2012). Test scores do not predict the future of an individual’s success very well, and non-cognitive skills may play a bigger role than cognitive skills play (Brunello and Schlotter 2010; Levin 2012). Some assessments show successes that are only productive in the short term, while failures may actually be more productive in the long term (Dean and Kuhn 2007; Kapur 2014, 2016).
That’s the beginning. Read it all.
I LOVE Yong Zhao’s work. Zhao’s article is right on.
Here is what Boulder Valley Public Schools is doing re: “learning during the pandemic.”
YAY.
BVSD develops districtwide 2020 project to share student perspectives (March 13, 2020)
https://news.yahoo.com/bvsd-develops-districtwide-2020-project-042300644.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr
What a great way to help students through this transition period in which more students return to in person learning. Helping students cope with their social-emotional issues is more important than collecting data.
I sure hope that teachers and those administrations understand that …
“Helping students cope with their social-emotional issues is more important than collecting data.”
I sure hope that thoughtful teachers will take into consideration students’ socio-emotional NEEDS. If not, then they missed the boat.
As a former scientist who has worked in the past with real hands-on data, I was appreciative of Peter Greene’s latest piece in Forbes about this very subject. Data is not the perfect, magical antidote to pandemic chaos. I’m am disturbed by the idea of using a phony concept called “learning loss” to form and shape policy from everything to funding, to school reopenings, summer school, and more standardized testing. Why? Because learning loss is an artificial construct that literally uses made-up “data” that doesn’t even exist, based on projections layered upon assumptions. Unlike real scientific data, it is not generated from any actual observations. CREDO uses “projections” to replace data that they didn’t really have, to create the concept of “Covid slide”, which is now being sold to nervous parents and policy makers as “learning loss” and “days of learning”. What a great way to market and sell tests, eduproducts for the billion dollar school industry, and throw in a little (or a lot) of teacher blame along the way. Thanks, McKinsey.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2021/03/09/learning-loss-is-just-educational-halitosis/?sh=537f0eea5e8c
Oakland_mom,
I think that this discussion of learning loss has put many of the posters here on the horns of a dilemma. On one horn is the claim that online learning is terrible. The other horn is that there has been no real impact on student learning from students having to learn online for the last year. I think most people here know that they can not choose both horns, but are unable to decide which one they will choose. Which do you choose?
No, those are not the horns of a dilemma. Online learning is an emergency measure; very few people like it or prefer it to in-person instruction.
The “learning loss” hoax consists of a fallacious claim: that a standardized test can measure how much learning was lost from March 2020 to March 2021. The last time the kids took a state test was spring 2019. Two years ago.
What is being measured? Even under the best of circumstances, the tests are not aligned with the curriculum; the results are returned six months later; the teachers are not allowed to see the question, nor to see which students gave right or wrong answers. What do the test scores mean under these circumstances? When you give a test in your class, don’t you see your students’ answers? Don’t you learn what they understood and what they missed? The current standardized tests do not provide any actionable information. They won’t measure “learning loss.”
If learning loss with online instruction is a hoax, criticism of online instruction is also a hoax. You have taken one of the horns.
You always miss the point.
Deformers have unleashed my skeptical tendencies. Whenever I read or hear about anything related to education, I find myself asking who benefits. The learning loss concerns benefit those that want to collect data to undermine public schools. It does not benefit students or teachers. Teachers do not need standardized tests to tell them who needs help. There are many more better assessments that will quickly determine the students that need the most help. There is no foundational educational reason for students to have their privacy violated to collect data. Data is the new “gold” that is sold in the marketplace. Data is a tool to bludgeon public schools into submission. This is the a key reason why data is so important, not the needs of students.
I recently heard that three feet of distancing is all that is needed in classrooms. Is this new finding based on science or politics? Everyone knows that political decisions are being given a high priority in public education today. Some of the information or advice should be viewed through a skeptical lens.
YES indeed. I agree with you, retired teacher.
Countries with laws requiring that employees are given ample breaks and vacations with paid sick, pregnancy, and childcare leave have higher productivity than the U.S. The reason is simple and obvious. If your employees (or students) are burning the candle at both ends, it is difficult for them to concentrate and produce better results more rapidly. Slaves are not the most productive workforce. Duh. I have direct pandemic experience with this.
Excellent.