Schools should remain open—then what?

Schools re-opened on September 12 last year on a limited basis after 542 days of closure. The wave of the new Omicron variant prompted another shut-down on January 21 this year, which has now been extended to February 21. Educationists, most health experts and UNICEF have argued that the risks of keeping schools closed are far greater than the benefits of protecting students by keeping them away from school. But not much is being said about what should happen in schools if they are kept open. It is not clear what will be done to help children overcome the serious learning loss that places most of them in what has been called a "generational catastrophe."

Is it hyperbolic to say the new generation—students currently at different levels of education—is facing an educational disaster that will affect them and the nation for a generation?  Indermit Gill, senior fellow at Brookings Institution, and Jaime Saavedra, senior director at World Bank, wrote recently that learning poverty, defined as 10-year-olds not acquiring basic reading skills, is likely to increase dramatically due to the educational impact of the pandemic. The average low- or middle-income country's learning poverty level is likely to increase from the pre-Covid level of 53 percent to 70 percent, "unless swift and bold action is taken." (Brookings, "We are losing a generation," January 28, 2022.)

From a typical Bangladeshi student's perspective, an 8-year-old who was in Class Three at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 attended Class Four when schools re-opened on September 12, 2021 and was promoted to Class Five at age 10 in January this year. The child barely received any classroom instruction during this whole period.  It is well-recognised that the efforts to engage students in learning through a distanced mode, by assigning homework or through teachers' contact, though commendable as initiatives, were not of much help for the large majority of students. The typical student is now expected to receive lessons from their Class Five syllabus, for which they are not ready. The exam system—based essentially on memorising notebooks and guidebooks, and being encouraged by class teachers and private tutors—will probably let students continue to be promoted to higher classes. Their learning deficits will continue to accumulate and widen. They will become school graduates with certificates but without the expected basic competencies for life, further education and work—an unwanted outcome for children and the nation.

Anticipating the problem, concerned educationists made four-point recommendations for learning recovery when schools reopened in September. These included: a) rapid assessment of grade-level readiness of students in Bangla and math at the primary school level and Bangla, English, math and science at the secondary level; b) helping schools and teachers to implement an intensive and accelerated remedial programme for these core subjects and foregoing the public exams at the end of Classes Five and Eight; c) guiding and assisting teachers to conduct the remedial lessons with online and in-person support; and d) extending the 2021 school year till June 2022 and changing the school calendar permanently as part of a two-to-three-year recovery plan.

Unfortunately, the authorities paid no heed to these ideas and insisted on sticking to their plan of going back to the pre-Covid normal routine, with not much success so far. The proposed learning recovery strategy remains relevant and necessary. The profound impact of the pandemic—which is not yet over—cannot just be ignored. 

The difficulties are compounded by a pandemic of indecision and inefficiency. The decision to bring students of 12 to 17 years under the vaccine coverage came late. The bureaucratic hurdles of registration, documentation requirements, and the inadequate logistics of the inoculation being available in an accessible way in each institution still leave most students without vaccines. This should have been a priority when schools opened in September. The schools are not better prepared today than a year ago with a systematic plan to apply a blended approach of combining digital and in-person learning. The inefficiency and indecision perhaps also have led to decision-makers ignoring the recovery recommendations.

For the sake of efficient, timely, and crisis-solving response to this unprecedented situation, it has to be first admitted that a real crisis exists that requires imaginative action. Three points warrant attention in a crisis-response mode.

First, in the crisis-response mode, some regular normal activities will have to be put on the back-burner to give priority to the learning recovery plan consisting of the key elements noted above. The curriculum revision and rolling out of the new curriculum, for instance, should be put on hold. The curriculum board instead needs to concentrate on the recovery plan, such as the tools for rapid assessment of core competencies, designing a remedial plan and assisting schools and teachers to implement it. At the same time, as much as possible, urgent actions should be formulated keeping in view the longer-term goals. The board should work with academia and education-focused NGOs in this effort.

Secondly, the recovery plan has to be customised for different levels of education—early childhood and preschool, primary, secondary, colleges and university. There are also specific needs for technical and vocational education, non-formal education, madrasa education and private universities. Needs and prospects for the blended approach should be different for each of these levels and types.

Thirdly, the crisis responses, to be designed in a coordinated and holistic manner and with an eye for longer-term goals, are better done through a transparent and participatory mechanism. Main stakeholders—NGOs, academia, teachers' organisations, parents—should be involved in the mechanism at national and local levels. A communicative approach should help keep the public informed of the goals and strategies, and the process of decision-making.

The critical question is how the students' presence in schools—at some risk to their health, and to the health of their teachers and families—can be made worthwhile for students from the point-of-view of learning recovery and students' social and emotional wellbeing. 

Dr Manzoor Ahmed is professor emeritus at Brac University, chair of Bangladesh ECD Network and vice-chair of CAMPE Council.