Focus on accountability for COVID-19 recovery in schools

OPINION:

It’s time to face facts. Our big national effort to address the damage to children caused by COVID-19 has not worked. We need to refocus our attention on realistic strategies that schools can actually implement to reach all the children who need help.

The signs of our failure are all around. Test scores on national achievement tests, especially in math, have shown no signs of recovery from their pandemic declines. Some evidence even shows things were worse in 2022-23 than the year before. On top of that, attendance has fallen off a cliff in states and districts nationwide—kids aren’t in school as much as they need to be. More than three years after COVID-19 caused schools nationwide to close, these truths are clear.

Almost $200 billion was set aside for COVID-19 recovery efforts, with the money often spent on teacher hiring and interventions like tutoring and summer school. However, these interventions have not stopped the bleeding. Summer school has had very small positive effects in math, effects so small it would take 30-50 years to erase the damage. Quality tutoring hasn’t reached that many children either—parent interest and uptake are too low to make a dent in the problem, and implementation challenges have abounded (as is always the case). We all wanted these policies to work, but they haven’t.

While disappointing, the failure of our recovery efforts is predictable. The defining characteristic of American education is its radical decentralization, which serves to protect schools from outside meddling but also thwarts real reform. While decentralization may have certain virtues, one of them is not the capacity for large-scale mobilization and coordinated activities.

Rather than be surprised that a decentralized system could not identify and provide a coordinated response to COVID-19, we should ask ourselves: How did we ever think 13,000 school districts working largely in isolation, with different capacities and degrees of political support be expected to figure out how to design and implement effective recovery programs?

On top of that, the messaging to parents has always been muddled—how are parents even to know their children need additional support? Test results aren’t reported in ways that make it clear there’s a problem, and so predictably, parents aren’t all that concerned.

We need to move past the idea that new intervention X or Y will catch children up; now is largely not the time for districts to be trying complicated new approaches. What we need instead is a strategy that maximizes the effectiveness of regular school-day instruction, drawing on what we know works. Fortunately, we know much more about what works than most people think.

One great example is the current movement to better integrate the science of reading—and high-quality curriculum materials embodying that science—in schools nationwide. From New York City to Mississippi, states and districts are embracing textbooks and teacher training that seem to be moving the needle on children’s reading. This effort needs to accelerate and move beyond reading—all children deserve high-quality, comprehensive curriculum materials that teachers can use. And disadvantaged children need the technology and connectivity to engage with an increasingly digital curriculum.

Children won’t learn what they need to if they are disengaged or absent from school, so targeting attendance is another key leverage point. Research-backed strategies include building positive relationships with families and students, ensuring educators have the data to quickly identify the students who need support, and strengthening the ability of educators to keep students engaged and in school. Keeping schools safe is also a key priority—parents rightfully won’t send their children to schools they think are dangerous.

The best curriculum and engagement strategies won’t work if teachers aren’t high quality, and strategies to improve the teacher workforce must also be prioritized. This means paying teachers more—especially those in shortage areas or where the cost of living is too high. But it also means supporting teachers with curriculum-aligned professional learning and programs to improve their working conditions.

If the last three years have taught us anything, though, it’s that good intentions are not enough—we need vigilant monitoring to track how children are doing. Regular accountability from states is important, and research confirms that it can improve student learning. Monitoring is especially important in the context of school choice; choice programs without real accountability seem to be quite harmful.

The problems that motivated us to pour billions into our schools during COVID-19 are still very real but the sooner we accept that our COVID-19 educational recovery hacks like tutoring and summer school aren’t going to cut it, the better off our children will be. We must not gloss over what COVID-19 has caused, but if we want to fix what’s broken we need to be realistic and focus on what works.