Reframing the Discussion on “Learning Loss”

When students were asked to discuss “learning loss” for a recent article, one talked about school during COVID, saying, “I lost time I could have been enjoying my childhood.” I think that is a profound statement on where students are at right now. While it is clear that some typical school learning did not happen to the same extent through the past 11 months, I would like to reframe how we look at the learning that did happen and learning goals moving forward. 

I argue that the primary focus of schooling should not be to push students toward artificial learning benchmarks at the expense of “enjoying their childhood.” We need a focus on helping students first develop a love for learning. We need a focus on what they can do, not on whether there is a small change in a test score-based trajectory. Using a packaged program that raises their score 5 points on a standardized test is not worth it if it destroys a child’s engagement in school. And, we have lost that truth when the primary focus is on “learning loss.” Schooling at its best allows for students to find their identity and their passions. And, it helps them see that they are loved. That should be a major lesson of COVID-19.

Therefore, we need to focus on meaningful learning opportunities for all students, not a deficit- and remediation-minded emphasis on making up for lost time. Post-COVID student support requires very careful and thoughtful approaches for several reasons:

• Standardized test scores in mathematics and literacy have been relatively flat for at least the last decade and achievement gaps are not closing. Putting more time into these subjects and doing more of the same has not and will not fix that problem. Admittedly, these types of tests provide limited information about the full range of important student learning, but they are a useful barometer, particularly in relation to equity.
• Research shows that science learning supports literacy learning, but it has seen an ongoing deprioritization, especially at the elementary level. Literacy learning consistently receives a larger share of the limited time available.
• Like mathematics learning, science should be about giving students opportunities to collaboratively figure out interesting problems and phenomena, not memorize facts. STEM learning broadly should be about empowering students to make a difference in their community, with the ability to see where that’s possible.
• We need to move beyond only the “What Works Clearinghouse” of programs, often based on biased studies. As noted above, we have seen little overall impact on achievement gaps, but we have also realized that they exacerbate the opportunity gap. I taught in a school where students were taken out of engaging elective courses (like STEM) and placed in front of a computer for extra reading learning. Thus, they lost key elements of school that motivated them to attend. We must unravel the structures that inhibit joyful learning.
• A deficit focus on students who have not “learned” as much as others has historically led to tracking. Tracking needs to be dismantled, not further entrenched through new post-COVID strategies. Remediation, as has been seen in post-secondary education, is rarely the best answer. School systems need to strive for renewal- and asset-based support, as framed by this Nebraska model.

Instead of a focus on more of the same strategies to support students, we need to emphasize enriched learning for all. We need to get students engaged through meaningful connections to their community and their lived experience. For example, teachers can have them build literacy skills while gaining empowerment through exploring a unit on health equity and COVID-19.

As Dr. Bettina Love, the inspiration of several parts of this article, says, we need to focus more on joy – celebrating that we made it through COVID and dreaming of what can be – not get stuck back in the way things have always been done.