As Students Struggled to Learn, Teachers Reported Few Strategies as Particularly Helpful to Mitigate Learning Loss (GAO-22-104487)
Summary
A GAO report to congressional committees, GAO-22-104487, dated May 2022, on pandemic learning. It reports that during the 2020-21 school year students in all grade levels, whether learning in person or virtually, struggled with many obstacles, according to GAO's nationwide survey of K-12 public school teachers and discussion groups with teachers, principals and parents. Obstacles listed include absence from school or class, being busy providing assistance to siblings, and difficulty completing class assignments and homework. Its title states that teachers reported few strategies as particularly helpful to mitigate learning loss.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
United States Government Accountability Office MAY 2022
Report to Congressional Committees GAO-22-104487
Accessible Version
PANDEMIC LEARNING:
As Students Struggled
to Learn, Teachers
Reported Few Strategies
as Particularly Helpful to
Mitigate Learning Loss
Source: Alina/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-104487
CONTENTS
GAO Highlights .................................................................................................................................. iii
Letter................................................................................................................................................... iv
Scope and Methodology ..................................................................................................................iv
Pandemic Instructional Models .......................................................................................................vi
SECTION 1: Obstacles to Learning During the Pandemic.............................................................. 1
Lack of Tools and Space for Learning Virtually .............................................................................. 2
Student Disengagement ................................................................................................................. 3
Absences ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Competing Demands on Time ......................................................................................................... 6
Difficulty Getting Support ................................................................................................................. 7
Social or Emotional Issues .............................................................................................................. 8
Difficulty Understanding Lessons .................................................................................................... 9
In-Person Obstacles ...................................................................................................................... 10
SECTION 2: Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss ........................................................................11
Live Instruction ............................................................................................................................. 12
Technology for Learning Activites or Assignments and Feedback ................................................ 14
Other Helpful Strategies ............................................................................................................... 15
Asynchronous Instruction .............................................................................................................. 16
Learning Loss Mitigation Strategies by Instructional Model ......................................................... 18
List of Committees ........................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX I: GAO Related Products ............................................................................................. 21
APPENDIX II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ........................................................... 22
Copyright
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted
images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page ii GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
GAO Highlights
PANDEMIC LEARNING
Highlights As Students Struggled to Learn, Teachers
Highlights of GAO-22-104487, a report to
Reported Few Strategies as Particularly Helpful
congressional committees
to Mitigate Learning Loss
Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found
Obstacles to Learning during
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted During the 2020-21 school year, students in all School Year 2020-21
learning for millions of students, grade levels, whether learning in person or virtually,
educators, and families who had struggled with many obstacles. These ranged from !• Absence from school or class
to navigate modified in-person and lack of appropriate workspaces and adequate
support to competing demands on their time, !• Being distracted/busy providing
virtual schooling, often in difficult
disengagement, and absences. Such obstacles assistance to siblings or younger
circumstances. The pandemic’s
hindered student learning, according to GAO’s students
effects continue to reverberate
across the nation and produce nationwide survey of K-12 public school teachers !• Difficulty completing class
challenges for schools that will likely and discussion groups with teachers, principals, assignments
and parents (see figure).
be felt for years to come. In many
!• Difficulty completing homework
respects, the 2020-21 school year In particular, a higher percentage of teachers who
offered useful insights that may help taught students in virtual or hybrid (mix of virtual !• Difficulty getting assistance,
schools, educators, and parents in and in-person) environments consistently reported support, or supervision at their
the future. that their students experienced learning difficulties workspace
than teachers in an in-person environment. For
The CARES Act includes a provision example, an estimated 60 percent of teachers in !• Difficulty obtaining supplies or
for GAO to report on its ongoing a virtual environment had students who had more educational materials
COVID-19 monitoring and oversight difficulty understanding lessons than in a typical !• Difficulty understanding lessons
efforts. GAO also conducted this year, compared to 37 percent of teachers in an in-
work in response to a provision in person environment. Differences in the responses !• Difficulty using devices or other
the conference report accompanying between virtual and in-person environments technology
the National Defense Authorization could reflect the instructional setting and other
!• Disruptive behaviors
Act of Fiscal Year 2021. This report, factors that GAO did not measure, such as school
which is the first in a series of resources or certain student characteristics. In !• Failing a class or being
reports, examines (1) obstacles to addition, obstacles affecting students varied by significantly behind
learning during school year 2020- grade level. For example, 92 percent of grades
21, and (2) strategies to mitigate 9-12 teachers who had students who made less !• Focus or attention issues
learning loss. GAO examines these academic progress compared to a typical year
!• Lack of a dedicated device to use
topics overall, by grade level, and indicated that social or emotional issues were
for learning
by instructional model (in-person, contributors compared to 83 percent of grades 3-8
virtual, or hybrid). teachers and 69 percent of K-2 teachers. !• Lack of adequate breakfast/lunch
To address these objectives, GAO Teachers used many strategies to mitigate learning !• Lack of an appropriate workspace
contracted with Gallup to (1) conduct loss. They reported that two strategies in particular
helped at least half their students make academic !• Lack of reliable internet service
a nationally representative survey
progress: live instruction and technology apps or
of K-12 public school teachers !• Late arrival to or early departure
platforms. Specifically, 85 percent of teachers who
and (2) arrange virtual discussion from class
taught students fully or partially in person indicated
groups with teachers, principals,
that live instruction helped many of their students. In !• Limited or no class participation
and parents of K-12 students. GAO
contrast, 56 percent of teachers who taught students
also held two additional discussion virtually all or part of the time indicated that live !• Signs of emotional distress
groups, one with teachers and virtual instruction (i.e., synchronous learning) helped
one with parents of students in many of their students. Regarding technology,
Department of Defense Education nearly two-thirds of teachers who used apps or
Activity schools. GAO analyzed the platforms for students to submit their assignments
resulting survey data and discussion and to provide feedback thought it was helpful for
group responses. To view more many of their students. Teachers used many other
technical details on GAO’s methods, strategies as well, but they were generally helpful
see https://www.gao.gov/products/ to fewer students and used less often. One notable
GAO-22-105817. exception was asynchronous learning, in which Shaded obstacles indicate a majority of teachers
reported that this was a learning obstacle for more
View GAO-22-104487. For more students work independently without live instruction. of their students during the 2020-2021 school year
information, contact Jacqueline This strategy was used regularly by 69 percent compared to a typical pre-pandemic school year.
M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or of teachers, yet fewer than 40 percent thought it
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public
nowickij@gao.gov. helped at least half of their students. school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
MAY 2022 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Letter
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
May 10, 2022
Congressional Committees
For over 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted learning for millions of students, educators, and families.
Its effects continue to reverberate across the nation and schools will likely feel these effects for years to come. Most
schools across the country faced temporary closures, abrupt transitions to virtual learning, and difficulty adapting to
rapidly changing state and federal guidance on appropriate health and safety measures in classrooms. As the pandemic
continued into the fall of 2020, many schools and districts faced tough decisions about how to educate students while
minimizing the spread of COVID-19. As conditions changed over time, many districts and schools continually re-
evaluated trade-offs between these two sometimes seemingly conflicting goals, making choices they determined best
suited the needs and interests of their own communities. Many continued virtual learning for much of the 2020-21 school
year, despite its challenges, given health and safety indicators in their communities.
As schools and districts struggled to operate amid uncertainty and difficult circumstances, students were, not
unexpectedly, profoundly affected. For example, as we recently reported, nearly half of all K-12 public school teachers
nationwide had at least one student who never showed up for class during the 2020-21 school year. For the majority of
these teachers, this was more than is typically the case in a normal school year.1 In many respects, the 2020-21 school
year offers important insights into the struggles and successes students, educators, and parents faced.
The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to report on its ongoing monitoring and oversight efforts related to the
COVID-19 pandemic.2 As part of our body of work to understand the impact of COVID-19 on public K-12 education, we
are issuing a series of reports in the spring of 2022 that highlight key findings from our nationally generalizable survey
of general education teachers and discussion groups with teachers, principals, and parents. Specifically, these reports
cover teaching and learning during the pandemic; how it affected certain vulnerable populations like English learners;
and potential implications for the future.
This report examines: (1) obstacles to learning and (2) strategies to mitigate learning loss that teachers found helped
more or fewer students. We examine the topics overall, by grade level, and by instructional model–virtual, in-person, or
hybrid (a combination of the two).
Scope and Methodology
GAO contracted with Gallup to (1) conduct a nationally representative survey of elementary and secondary public school
teachers between June 18 and July 9, 2021 and (2) arrange virtual discussion groups with teachers, principals, and
parents. Our survey focused on general education teachers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.3 The survey
asked teachers about their instructional models, adult support provided to their students, difficulties their students faced,
1
GAO, K-12 Education: An Estimated 1.1 Million Teachers Nationwide Had At Least One Student Who Never Showed Up for Class in the 2020-21
School Year, GAO-22-104581 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2022).
2
Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 19010, 134 Stat. 281, 579-81 (2020).
3
We surveyed general education teachers who work in a public school and taught a core subject. For the purpose of this survey, core subjects
included: elementary school, math, science, computer science/information technology, English/language arts/reading/writing, social studies and
world/foreign languages or English language learning. For this work, we use the terms elementary, middle, and high school to refer to those teaching
in grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12, respectively.
Page iv GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
their students’ academic progress, strategies they used to mitigate learning Q&A
loss, and the extent to which their students were engaged in learning, QUESTION BOX
among other topics.4 The initial sample was selected from two sources:
the Gallup Panel, a probability based panel of U.S. adults, and a national
list of teachers. The responses achieved our margin of error targets for
key subgroups by location, participation in free or reduced-price lunch
(FRPL) programs, grade level, and percentage of English learners. They
were weighted to minimize bias independently for each source and for the What is learning loss?
sources combined. All estimates in this report have a margin of error less
For the purposes of this report, learning
than or equal to +/- 10 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
loss means the loss or reversal of
We analyzed the survey responses of 2,862 teachers, which are knowledge or skills as well as forgone
generalizable to the population of all K-12 general education public learning, which is the learning that
school teachers in the U.S.5 This analysis included disaggregation for would have occurred under typical
circumstances. Learning loss may
each key subgroup. We also developed a series of statistical models to
accumulate over time, particularly if a
describe the associations between teachers’ use of various strategies
student misses a lot of classes.
to address learning loss and teachers’ perceived effectiveness of the
Educators have used various strategies
strategies. Our models estimated the probability that a teacher would to mitigate learning loss, such as
report that “about half” or more of their students “improved their academic lengthening the school day or year,
progress” differed by instructional models. We grouped responses to offering summer school programs, and
each question, in order to increase the sample sizes. We estimated these implementing “high-dose” tutoring,
probabilities separately by grade level, in-person or hybrid and virtual which can entail tutors working with
instructional models, and a three-way categorization of the school’s FRPL students every day, often one-to-one or
participation. We limited the survey respondents to those who responded in small groups.
to all relevant questions—a sub-sample that could vary across learning Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public
school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
strategies.
Note: Advance Illinois and the Chicago Public
To gain further insight into the topics covered in the survey, we held 18 Education Fund, From Crisis to Recovery: The
Education Impact of COVID-19: Preparing to Meet
virtual discussion groups with public school teachers (six groups), parents Students’ Academic and Social & Emotional Needs,
of students (six groups), and principals (six groups) between June 29 Post-Disaster (Chicago, IL: Apr. 23, 2020) and
Annenberg Institute at Brown University, Results for
and July 14, 2021.6 We contracted with Gallup to recruit and arrange the
America, and University of Virginia, Accelerating
K-12 public school groups. In total, Gallup segmented participant category Student Learning with High Dosage Tutoring,
(teachers, parents, and principals) based on their school’s geographic EdResearch for Recovery Design Principles Series
(Providence, RI: Feb. 2021).
4
Many survey questions asked teachers to reflect on their experiences teaching virtually, in-person, or in a hybrid model. Teachers were instructed
to answer these questions based on how their students learned for the majority of the year. Teachers who indicated they worked simultaneously
with students learning fully in person and students learning fully virtually were randomly assigned to answer either the questions about teaching in a
virtual environment or in person.
5
Our survey results are based on the responses of 2,862 teachers who met our eligibility criteria of public school general education teachers of core
subjects–selected from an initial sample of 45,792 teachers. The initial sample was selected from the Gallup Panel, a probability based panel of
U.S. adults, and a national list of teachers. The overall response rate was 8.2 percent (using the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s
response rate 3, which accounts for the estimated eligibility rate of non-respondents). Estimates for subpopulations of interest had margins of error
ranging from plus or minus 2.9 to 7.2 percent, although margins for individual questions varied depending upon the number of responses. Gallup
adjusted the survey weights to account for potential nonresponse bias by accounting for relevant school characteristics for non-respondents and
re-weighting (post-stratifying) the sample to match the number and regional distribution of teachers and teacher demographics such as age, sex, and
race. Weighting information came from the National Center for Education Statistics National Teacher and Principal Survey for 2017-2018. Based on
the survey and weighting adjustment methods used, we determined that estimates from this survey are generalizable to the population of U.S. public
K-12 general education teachers and are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.
6
After completing the survey, teachers answered additional screening questions to determine their eligibility, interest, and availability to participate in
our discussion groups. In addition, to respond to a provision in the conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 2021 for GAO to examine virtual learning in Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) schools, we held two additional discussion
groups–one with DODEA teachers and one with parents of students in DODEA schools. For the DODEA discussion groups, we selected a non-
generalizable sample from DODEA’s Southeast district in the U.S., which had the highest percentage of stateside students in full-time virtual status
as of October 2020. To solicit participants for our discussion groups, we asked DODEA to send an email to teachers and parents in that district to
inform them of our request. We considered five factors in selecting participants: (1) military installation within the Southeast district, (2) grade levels
teachers taught or grade level students were in, (3) subjects teachers taught, (4) gender of teachers and parents, and (5) race or ethnicity of teachers
and parents. The findings from those two discussion groups are incorporated into this report, and are not generalizable to other DODEA teachers and
parents. DODEA teachers participated in discussion groups only; no DODEA teachers completed the teacher survey.
Page v GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
location (urban, suburban, or rural), with two groups for each participant type and location. Teachers participating in the
groups had also responded to our generalizable teacher survey. GAO moderators structured and guided the discussions
using a standardized list of questions to encourage participants to share their thoughts and experiences on students’
learning during school year 2020-21 and strategies used to mitigate learning loss. We developed discussion guides
tailored to each stakeholder group (teachers, principals, and parents) without Gallup’s input. Prior to conducting any of
the discussion groups with participants recruited by Gallup, we pretested our discussion guide with one teacher, two
parents, and two principals. Discussion groups were held by video conference in the evenings and lasted one hour each
to accommodate the schedules of participants. The contractor also created a written transcript of each group. To select
discussion group comments for the report, we first analyzed and coded the transcripts from these discussion groups for
common themes among the groups. We then compared these themes with our survey results to identify comments that
were illustrative of the key themes across the survey and discussion group analyses. Comments, information, and views
obtained from these discussion groups are not generalizable to other educators and parents.7
Additional technical details about our scope and methodology are provided in GAO-22-105817, which offers supplementary
material for all of our pandemic learning loss work. It includes information such as survey terminology, the survey’s
sample frame, margin of error and minimum sample size requirements, sample weighting, analysis approach, regression
modeling, and discussion group recruitment and logistics. It also includes a copy of the survey instrument and survey
results in aggregate for all closed-ended questions.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2020 to May 2022 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Pandemic Instructional Models
Throughout the 2020-21 school year, teachers, administrators, and policymakers were continually challenged to make
decisions about whether to keep schools open for in-person learning, close their school buildings (completely or on
certain days) and revert to virtual instruction, or use some combination of the two. In our nationally generalizable
survey, we asked teachers to identify which of the following four models they taught in for the majority of the 2020-21
school year.8
• In-person: teaching and learning occur in the same classroom.
• Virtual: teaching and learning occur via information technology (hardware and software), including
video or audio conferencing and document sharing; could be supplemented with printed assignments
and could be synchronous (real time) or asynchronous (accessed at any time).
• Hybrid: teaching and learning occur in person on certain days of the week and virtually on other days.
• Mixed: teachers present lessons simultaneously to students learning in person and to those learning
virtually. (These teachers were randomly assigned to answer some survey questions about teaching in
either a virtual environment or in-person.)
According to our survey, we estimate that about 25 percent of teachers taught full time in person for the majority of the
school year, meaning that the other 75 percent of teachers nationwide taught in a virtual environment (partially or full
time, for some or all of their students) for the majority of the school year (see figure below).
7
We similarly analyzed teacher responses to our open-ended survey questions to select comments that were illustrative of key themes. We defined a
common theme as one identified in 20 separate teacher survey responses. These comments are not generalizable to other teachers.
8
Our analyses are not designed to estimate causal effects of particular learning models. We do not address, assess, or form conclusions about the
health and safety measures taken by schools, districts, or states, including decisions to use any particular mode of instruction, in this body of work.
Instead, we focus on how, in retrospect, these different instructional models related to students’ learning.
Page vi GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
Estimated Percentage of Public K-12 Teachers That Used Each Instructional Model for the Majority of the 2020-21
School Year
Type of learning
Full-time in-person 25
Full-time virtual 28
Hybrid 20
A mix of learning 27
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percent
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Some survey questions
asked teachers to reflect on their experiences teaching in the instructional model in which they spent the majority of the year. The 27 percent of
teachers who indicated they used a mix of instructional models for the majority of the year were randomly assigned to reflect on either their virtual
or in person experiences.
The technology needed for virtual instruction has existed for some time, but it was not used on such a wide scale until
the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual instruction can be provided in two formats: “asynchronous,” whereby students work
independently without real-time instruction (accessed at any time) or “synchronous,” whereby teachers provide real-
time instruction online (live instruction). Each format has advantages and disadvantages. For example, asynchronous
instruction can be accessed at any time; however, because a teacher is not present in real-time, students may not
receive answers to questions right away. In contrast, synchronous instruction provides real-time access to teachers, but
technology problems can be a barrier to live engagement (see table below).
Description of Asynchronous and Synchronous Virtual Instruction Models
Asynchronous Virtual Instruction
accessed at any time
resources include recorded video instruction, online activities and assignments, and hard copy materials
can accommodate a household’s schedule and multiple students in a home sharing a device at different times
students work at their own pace, but there can be a time lag between accessing materials and getting answers
to any questions
students may not be able to interact with peers
Synchronous Virtual Instruction
accessed live at a specific time
resources include live virtual classroom instruction, office hours for questions, and small group meetings
provides opportunities for engagement with teachers and peers in real-time, and this communication may
strengthen relationships and develop a sense of community
technical problems can be a barrier to real-time engagement
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Page vii GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
PANDEMIC LEARNING
SECTION OBSTACLES TO LEARNING
1 During the Pandemic
The 2020-21 School Year Presented Many Obstacles for Students
Students struggled with a plethora of obstacles that hindered their learning and contributed to
learning loss during the 2020-21 school year (see figure below). Some of these obstacles emerged
during the pandemic, while others were preexisting and worsened during the pandemic. A higher
percentage of teachers who taught virtually or in a hybrid model for the majority of the school year
consistently reported that their students experienced learning difficulties than teachers who taught
in person the majority of the time.
Keep in Mind
The findings in this section are the result of our nationwide survey of K-12 teachers and discussion
groups with teachers, principals, and parents and reflect their experiences during the 2020-21
school year. When we refer to a “virtual environment,” we mean one in which students spent the
majority of the year learning remotely. Similarly, “in person” means students spent the majority of
the year learning in the classroom and “hybrid” refers to an environment in which students spent
some days learning remotely and others in the classroom. We also defined a “typical school year”
as a recent school year prior to the pandemic. Differences in the responses between virtual and
in-person environments could reflect the instructional setting as well as other factors that we did
not measure, such as school resources or certain student characteristics. (We did not design our
analysis to estimate the causal effects of the environment.)
Obstacles to Learning during
School Year 2020-21
! Disruptive Failing a
behaviors
! class or being
Signs of significantly Absence
Lack of reliable
! ! emotional behind ! from school
internet service Focus or
distress ! Late arrival or class
Lack of a attention
to or early
dedicated issues !
departure
Difficulty ! device to use
from class
obtaining for learning Lack of Difficulty
Lack of an Difficulty
! adequate ! completing
! supplies or ! appropriate ! understanding
educational breakfast/lunch homework
workspace lessons
materials Limited or
Difficulty using
Difficulty getting ! no class
! devices or other
assistance, support, participation Difficulty
technology !
or supervision at ! completing class
Being distracted/busy
their workspace assignments
! providing assistance
to siblings or younger
students
Shaded obstacles indicate a majority of teachers reported that
this was a learning obstacle for more of their students during
the 2020-21 school year compared to a typical pre-pandemic
school year.
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The circle sizes do not represent the number of students who encountered the obstacles or the severity of the obstacles. Descriptions of obstacles
come directly from questions asked in our nationwide survey of teachers. The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 3 percent
at the 95 percent confidence level.
Page 1 Pandemic Learning | GAO-22-104487
SECTION 1 | OBSTACLES TO LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC
What We Heard
Lack of Tools and Space for
Learning Virtually
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
Many students had trouble learning in the virtual environment.
For example, students lacked appropriate workspaces (i.e., “ …[on] virtual days the program that the school
district was using wasn’t very user friendly so a
workspaces free from distractions) and reliable internet lot of times the students couldn’t access what
access (see figure below). We estimate that many teachers
had students who lacked an appropriate workspace and had
they needed to access.
” – Suburban Parent
difficulties using technology, compared to a typical year.
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Had Students “ We are in such a rural spot with tons of
hills and about half of our kids don’t have
Who Faced Obstacles to Learning Related to the Virtual internet access that’s adequate to even be
Environment able to use Teams and our school was using
Teams throughout the year. So we had to learn
Public K-12 Teachers, 2020-21 School Year
basically how to create an internet web that
Percent was able to get out to these kids on a regular
basis and still deliver instruction to the kids
100
that were in school and to the kids who were
out of school.
” – Rural Principal
80
“ The challenges included…there’s three people
in a two bedroom apartment of less than a
thousand square feet all trying to be on different
60
Zooms at the same time and have class and that
”
58 More of their students lacked appropriate creates all kinds of issues.
20
workspace (compared to a typical
– Urban Parent
pre-pandemic school year)
40
More of their students had difficulty
“ [My children’s] school required them to turn
their laptops back in when they went back in
30
using devices (compared to a typical person, but when [the school] kept switching
20 pre-pandemic school year) back to virtual they had to be re-issued
laptops….sometimes [my] children ended up not
11 About half or more of their having class some days due to [the] school not
students lacked reliable
0 internet service
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
being able to finish distributing the laptops.
”
– Department of Defense
Education Activity Parent
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 3
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents
of students in public K-12 schools and parents of
students in Department of Defense Education Activity
schools. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
by principals and parents in GAO discussion groups
and are not generalizable.
Page 2 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | OBSTACLES TO LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC
What We Heard
Student Disengagement
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
A-Z
“ In my opinion, this was one of the major
barriers that…hindered us from meeting with
as much success as I think that we might have
been able to make had [I] been…able to actually
look at the child. …40 to 60% of students who
were logged in for attendance were what I
DEFINITION: Disengaged
Source: GAO.| GAO-22-14487 Student
call ghosts meaning you were logged into the
In our survey we defined a disengaged student as computer, your computer was on mute, [and]
one whose learning or grades were substantially you weren’t interrupting anyone. But I really
affected due to limited participation in class. do not believe that you were sitting actually at
the screen paying attention and/or participating
online at all. So I think that that was definitely
Student disengagement was pervasive, took various forms, one of the huge pitfalls that spilled over from the
and contributed to learning loss (see figure below).
previous year that had really nothing to do with
Examples of Forms of Student Disengagement in School
education, but education suffered greatly.
”
– Suburban Teacher
Students not fully
participating in
Students doing less
work or assignments or “ But the biggest obstacle when it come[s]
to the students was getting them logged on,
no work and assignments
education on time, getting them on camera and getting
X
them engaged. It was really a struggle. I would
go in the classroom and see teachers trying
to do everything to engage students, but the
Student
students were virtually away from them, and
Disengagement
they couldn’t.
”
Students not attending – Urban Principal
Students not attending or participating in some
or participating in or any classes
some instruction
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Page 3 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | OBSTACLES TO LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC
What We Heard
Student Disengagement
(continued)
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
Student disengagement was a major obstacle to learning,
according to our estimates.
“ Well,…mostly I teach seniors and…those
virtual students…took advantage of virtual.
• The vast majority of K-12 teachers (85 percent) had at least So they took a job locally. And sometimes
one disengaged student and nearly three-quarters had more they work fulltime. Instead of attending school
disengaged students than during a typical school year. virtually they decided to go to work and not do
• High school teachers reported higher levels of student schoolwork. So that’s the biggest challenge for
disengagement than K-2 or 3-8 teachers (see figure below). me to make sure not only [that] they check in
• Teachers who taught virtually (90 percent) more commonly weekly. They do check in weekly to make sure
had at least one disengaged student than those who taught they [are] counted as attending school. But they
”
in-person (78 percent).9 don’t turn in any work.
– Rural Teacher
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Had More
Disengaged Students
Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents
Public K-12 Teachers by Grade Level, 2020-21 School of students in public K-12 schools and parents of
students in Department of Defense Education Activity
Year Compared to a Typical Pre-pandemic School Year schools. | GAO-22-104487
Percent Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
by principals and parents in GAO discussion groups
100 and are not generalizable.
63 72 82 More
Fewer or about the same
80
60
40
37
20 28
18
0
K-2* 3-8* 9-12
Grades
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: *There is no significant statistical difference between grade levels K-2
and 3-8. The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 8
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
9
An estimated 85 percent of teachers who taught in hybrid had at least one
disengaged student, but there is no significant statistical difference between
hybrid and virtual or hybrid and in-person.
Page 4 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | OBSTACLES TO LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC
What We Heard
Absences
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
Many teachers had more students who were absent or
missed instruction compared to a typical year (see figure
“ What continued to be a significant problem
that impacted learning loss was student
below). We estimate that almost two-thirds of teachers had attendance…the number of class absences…
more students who were absent compared to a typical year, it’s impossible for kids to learn if they’re not
”
with 38 percent having had students with somewhat more participating and they just weren’t.
absences and 25 percent having had students with many
more absences. Teachers who taught in a hybrid model – Rural Principal
(69 percent) more commonly had more students who were
absent compared to a typical year than those who taught in- Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents
person (58 percent). of students in public K-12 schools and parents of
students in Department of Defense Education Activity
schools. | GAO-22-104487
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Had More Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
Students Who Were Absent by principals and parents in GAO discussion groups
and are not generalizable.
Public K-12 Teachers, 2020-21 School Year Compared
to a Typical Pre-pandemic School Year
8%
Much
less*
9%
Somewhat
25%
less*
Much more
19%
About the same
amount
38%
Somewhat more
Source: GAO
Source: GAO analysis
analysisof
ofsurvey
surveyofof
K-12 public
K-12 school
public teachers.
school |
teachers.GAO-22-104487
| GAO-22-104487
Note: *There is no significant statistical difference between Much Less and
Somewhat Less. The margin of error for all percentages was less than or
equal to +/- 3 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
Page 5 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | OBSTACLES TO LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC
What We Heard
Competing Demands
on Time
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
Teachers reported students had responsibilities that
interfered with their learning. We estimate that more than
“ I teach ninth through twelfth—and …a lot
of them were… being told [by their parents]…
half of teachers with disengaged students had students they have to go to work. And they said we know
whose responsibilities providing care to a family member that you have [to]… get your work done, but
interfered with learning and nearly one-third had students you have your three siblings over here and
whose work commitments competed with learning time. While somebody’s gotta watch them. So while those
caring for family interfered with learning across grade levels
other kids—the second, third, fourth, fifth graders
(see figure below), significantly higher percentages of high
were being observed and, for lack of a better
school teachers observed this challenge than did teachers of
term, babysat during their virtual meetings, my
younger students.
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Had Disengaged
kids weren’t getting any of their work done.
”
– Rural Teacher
Students for Whom Providing Care to a Family Member
Interfered with Learning
Public K-12 Teachers by Grade Level, 2020-21 School Year “ [T]here were many instances where older
kids had to sacrifice their education to help
Percent their younger siblings due to limited tech, or
because both parents were working, or because
100
”
Somewhat or a
27 56 71 caretakers got sick or passed away.
significant factor
Not at all or not – Department of Defense
80 much of a factor Education Activity Teacher
73
60 Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents
of students in public K-12 schools and parents of
students in Department of Defense Education Activity
schools. | GAO-22-104487
40 44 Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
by principals and parents in GAO discussion groups
and are not generalizable.
29
20
0
K-2 3-8 9-12
Grades
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 10
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
Page 6 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | OBSTACLES TO LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC
What We Heard
Difficulty Getting Support
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
We estimate that teachers had many students who did not
receive adequate support for virtual learning.
“ So my son’s stepfather was working from
home, so he was trying to work, watch a two
year old and answer questions [for my 11 year
• Nearly three-quarters of teachers (71 percent) said less
than half of their students who needed substantial support old son]. [W]hen [my 11 year old] wanted that
received enough support during the school day. These extra hand of help, [but my husband] wasn’t
percentages were relatively consistent across grade levels really available…[my son] was calling me when
(see figure below). I was at work trying to figure it out. Plus trying to
• Almost 80 percent of teachers had less than half of their keep a two year old out of a room to let your 11
students who needed substantial support receive enough year old focus doesn’t work very well because
”
support after school with things like homework. he just wants to be with his brother.
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Had Less than – Rural Parent
Half of Their Students Who Needed Substantial Support
Receive Enough Support during the School Day to
Learn Virtually “ We had a hard time because parents were
working – we didn’t have anybody to monitor the
Public K-12 Teachers by Grade Level, 2020-21 School Year young kids and often they would have their older
Percent siblings that were trying to monitor while also
trying to do their own classwork. That made it
”
100
really difficult for them.
– Rural Teacher
80
“
71%
All teachers The thing that I found to be the biggest
74 72
challenge was that we had no regular teachers
60 64
from the school. Everything was done online and
… you couldn’t ask any questions at the time
you needed help. But with mine being that he’s,
40
you know, in high school, he decided that he was
going to turn to YouTube to help him to figure
20 out some of the things simply because mom and
dad was working all through the pandemic.
”
– Urban Parent
0
K-2* 3-8* 9-12*
Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents
Grades
of students in public K-12 schools and parents of
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487 students in Department of Defense Education Activity
schools. | GAO-22-104487
Note: *There is no significant statistical difference between grade levels K-2,
3-8, and 9-12. The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
to +/- 9 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. by principals and parents in GAO discussion groups
and are not generalizable.
Page 7 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | OBSTACLES TO LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC
What We Heard
Social or Emotional Issues
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
We estimate that nearly two-thirds of teachers (61 percent)
had more students who showed signs of emotional distress
“ For my children in particular, some of the
self-starting that is required for virtual learning
than in a typical year. In addition, among those teachers who is very difficult. Especially in subject areas that
had students who made less academic progress compared to they did not desire to be working in they had a
a typical year, the vast majority said social or emotional issues hard time keeping up with the work, having the
were a contributing factor to the lack of progress. These issues motivation or having the wherewithal to actually
were especially common in high school (see figure below). contact the … teacher to ask questions… It was
very difficult for them to have the emotional and
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Reported That
social maturity to take advantage of that on their
Social or Emotional Issues Contributed to Their Students
own without somebody prompting them to do
Having Made Less Progress
it. I think that was probably our biggest single
Public K-12 Teachers Who Had Students Who Made Less struggle with my children. The stress alone was
Academic Progress, by Grade Level, 2020-21 School Year astonishing to them. As we got further…along,
Compared to a Typical Pre-pandemic School Year they got more and more depressed about the
Percent environment and having to do everything virtual,
and their grades sunk in a number of ways. Not
100
because they didn’t understand the material but
92 often because they just didn’t do the work that
80 83
83%
All teachers
was affiliated with it.
”
– Urban Parent
69
60
“ It was hard for virtual students to make friends
and be social with classmates…the repeated
40 changes made during the pandemic and changes
to schedules kept breaking up any social circles
20
or interactions that existed previously.
”
– Department of Defense
Education Activity Teacher
0
K-2 3-8 9-12 Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents
Grades of students in public K-12 schools and parents of
students in Department of Defense Education Activity
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487 schools. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 8 Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
percent at the 95 percent confidence level. by principals and parents in GAO discussion groups
and are not generalizable.
Page 8 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | OBSTACLES TO LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC
What We Heard
Difficulty Understanding Lessons
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
We estimate that teachers across all instructional models – in
person, virtual, and hybrid – had students with more difficulty
“ And…virtually it was—and hybrid—it was a
complete wash. Like the kids who didn’t have
understanding their lessons than in a typical year. The someone sitting with them the entire day like
differences were particularly acute for those in virtual or hybrid they may as well have just put on the TV and
models (see figure below). done something else. And they may as well have
gone somewhere. Like there was nothing they
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Had Students were learning in school. And part of that was
with More Difficulty Understanding Lessons
because of the modality of virtual learning, part
Public K-12 Teachers by Instructional Model, 2020-21 School of that was the communication from teachers
Year Compared to a Typical Pre-pandemic School Year where parents didn’t know where to send
their kids for each different Zoom meeting or
Percent
Google classroom meeting. Part of it was all
100 the apps are just…confusing interfaces for a
More
37 60 59 first grader and a parent who doesn’t…spend
Less or about
all day hanging out in Google Suites. [I]t’s just
the same
80 one confusing mess for everybody. And…they
weren’t learning anything in the virtual classes.
”
60 – Urban Teacher
63
Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents
40 of students in public K-12 schools and parents of
40 41 students in Department of Defense Education Activity
schools. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
20
by principals and parents in GAO discussion groups
and are not generalizable.
0
Full-time Full-time Hybrid*
in-person virtual*
Learning
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: *There is no significant statistical difference between full-time virtual
learning and hybrid learning in which students may attend school in person
on certain days of the week and virtually on other days. The margin of error
for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 5 percent at the 95 percent
confidence level. Some survey questions asked teachers to reflect on their
experiences teaching in the instructional model in which they spent the
majority of the year. The 27 percent of teachers who indicated they used a mix
of instructional models for the majority of the year were randomly assigned to
reflect on either their virtual or in person experiences.
Page 9 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | OBSTACLES TO LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC
What We Heard
In-Person Obstacles
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
While in-person instruction was less disruptive than virtual or
hybrid instruction, educators noted that in-person pandemic “ I teach a lot in small group[s] and between
the masks and the Plexiglass dividers, teaching
restrictions, such as masking and social distancing, created math and trying to show them…where they
difficulties for student learning.10 For example, according to a messed up in a problem or just being able
few principals and teachers in our discussion groups, small
to communicate clearly with them was really
group work was not feasible or was not effective with social
difficult with all of those things in the way. …I
distancing requirements. A couple of principals and teachers
kind of felt like we weren’t able to get that small
also shared that teaching language development was more
group instruction like we usually do so that was
difficult with mask requirements. Further, our survey showed
that teachers who spent the majority of the year teaching in
person had more students who faced various obstacles to
the biggest effect that I saw.
”
– Rural Teacher
learning, compared to a typical year (see figure below).
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Having
Students Who Faced Obstacles to In-Person Learning
“ Something I didn’t expect to have happen
was we were in person for most of the year, but
we had such strict mitigation strategies that we
In-person Public K-12 Teachers Comparing the 2020-21
weren’t allowed to put students in groups to work.
School Year to a Typical Pre-pandemic Year
We weren’t allowed to have them sit very close to
Percent
each other. And so it was really difficult for us to
100
do what we know is great learning strategies and
teaching strategies. So we had to come up with
80 different ways to try to reach kids.
”
– Suburban Principal
60 64 Teacher had more disengaged students
Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents
of students in public K-12 schools and parents of
40 More of their students had difficulty
students in Department of Defense Education Activity
understanding lessons
37 schools. | GAO-22-104487
More of their students lacked an
30 appropriate workspace Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
20 by principals and parents in GAO discussion groups
More of their students had and are not generalizable.
18 difficulty with devices,
technology
0
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 5
percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Some survey questions asked
teachers to reflect on their experiences teaching in the instructional model
in which they spent the majority of the year. The 27 percent of teachers
who indicated they used a mix of instructional models for the majority of the
year were randomly assigned to reflect on either their virtual or in person
experiences.
10
These difficulties were noted by teachers in open-ended survey responses
and educators in our discussion groups.
Page 10 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2: Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss
PANDEMIC LEARNING
SECTION STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE
2 Learning Loss
While They Used Many Different Learning Loss Strategies, Teachers Reported Only Two
Were Helpful for at Least Half of Their Students across All Instructional Models
While teachers used numerous strategies to mitigate learning loss, and many were helpful for
particular situations or student groups, only a few helped at least half of their students, according
to our survey estimates. For the strategies that were helpful to fewer students, most were used
infrequently, except for one—asynchronous instruction. In addition, for many strategies, the
proportion of students helped varied by instructional model (see figure below).
Keep in Mind
The findings in this section are the result of our nationwide survey of K-12 teachers and discussion
groups with teachers, principals, and parents, and reflect their experiences during the 2020-21
school year. When we refer to a “virtual environment,” we mean one in which students spent the
majority of the year learning remotely. Similarly, “in person” means students spent the majority of
the year learning in the classroom and “hybrid” refers to an environment in which students spent
some days learning remotely and others in the classroom. We also defined a “typical school year”
as a recent school year prior to the pandemic. Differences in the responses between virtual and
in-person environments could reflect the instructional setting as well as other factors that we did
not measure, such as school resources or certain student characteristics. (We did not design our
analysis to estimate the causal effects of the environment.)
Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss by Their Helpfulness for at Least Half of Their Students, According to Teachers
2020-21 School Year
Other strategies
Educational asked about in our survey
apps or
platforms for
subject learning Live,
activities Asynchronous
in-person Small
learning Team
instruction group work building/get-
in person to-know-you
activities
Helpful strategies Small One-on-one
for at least half of students group work More staff to check-ins
connecting support student between teacher
over device learning and student
After school Movement
or weekend breaks
Live,
Apps or tutoring
virtual Meetings
platforms to
instruction with
submit
counselor Tutoring
assignments/
feedback sessions during
the school day Use of paper packets,
Discussing social manipulatives, or
and emotional other physical
needs with parents instructional
or guardians Providing materials
extended or
flexible school
day
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The figure is based on the perceptions, experiences, and observations of teachers from our nationwide survey of K-12 teachers. The margin of
error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 10 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
Page 11 Pandemic Learning | GAO-22-104487
SECTION 2 | STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LEARNING LOSS
What We Heard
Live Instruction
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
We estimate that almost all teachers regularly used live
instruction, either virtually (synchronous) or in person, and
that it helped at least half of their students make academic
“ Synchronous instruction was the most helpful
in my classroom because I could see and
progress.11 Significantly more teachers found in-person respond to student needs and questions as they
instruction helpful compared to virtual live instruction (see
figure on next page).
were developing.
”
– Urban Teacher
Live instruction “ The synchronous instruction helped a lot.
Because at the end of last school year we…just
[had] teachers post assignments, post videos—
Virtual kids watched them whenever, submitted an
assignment on email or on Google Classroom
and things. And we learned that the kids wanted
a schedule. And so having the synchronous
instruction, having that delivery, was valuable.
”
– Rural Principal
In-person
“ But I felt like just them coming in person was –
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
the difference was night and day.
”
– Urban Teacher
“ I felt…the burnout from looking at the screen
all day—teachers trying to teach them—they
check out after a while. And, you know, if they
were in person the teacher could say or do
certain activities and, you know, just break up
the day and that wasn’t happening.
”
– Urban Principal
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers and principals. | GAO-22-104487
Notes: The selected comments reflect themes
discussed by teachers and principals in GAO
11
The majority of teachers who used virtual instruction thought it was helpful
discussion groups and are not generalizable.
for at least half of their students. However, we estimate it was significantly
less helpful for teachers in a hybrid environment compared to teachers in a Synchronous instruction is live instruction that happens
virtual environment. More teachers in a hybrid environment found in-person in real time between teachers and their students.
instruction helpful compared to virtual instruction.
Page 12 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LEARNING LOSS
Q&A
QUESTION BOX
Live Instruction (continued)
What does “students were helped”
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Used Live
by a strategy or “their academic
Instruction as a Strategy to Mitigate Learning Loss
progress improved” mean?
2020-21 School Year To determine whether teachers perceived
particular strategies to be helpful to their
Virtual, live instruction students, we asked the following two
questions:
• Approximately, how often during this
Strategy used at least once or twice a week school year have you used the following
strategies to support learning or address
91%
learning loss?
Strategy improved academic progress • How many of your students improved
for at least half of their students their academic progress as a result of
56% each of the following strategies?
Our estimates reflect that the majority of
teachers who used the strategy found the
strategy helped at least half of their
In-person, live instruction students. For more details on survey
questions and responses, see
GAO-22-105817.
Strategy used at least once or twice a week
We did not ask the teachers to use
92% assessment (or standardized test) data, in
part because assessments are often not
Strategy improved academic progress designed to evaluate the effectiveness of
for at least half of their students any specific strategy.
85% Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public
school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 3
percent at the 95 percent confidence level. These measures are based on
teachers’ perceptions. We asked teachers how many of their students were
helped by each of the learning loss strategies they reported using. Some
survey questions asked teachers to reflect on their experiences teaching in
the instructional model in which they spent the majority of the year. The 27
percent of teachers who indicated they used a mix of instructional models for
the majority of the year were randomly assigned to reflect on either their virtual
or in person experiences.
Page 13 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LEARNING LOSS
What We Heard
Technology for Learning Activites or
Assignments and Feedback
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
Similarly, we estimate teachers who used technology for learning
activities or assignments and feedback perceived that the “ …as far as the students that were in the
classroom, we basically did everything as if we
strategy mitigated learning loss for at least half of their students were virtual because [there] was not too much
(see figure below). Most teachers regularly used various apps one-to-one contact. Even though…I had [a]
and technology platforms—either to help students with subject small group…we would be behind plexiglass, we
matter learning or to allow their students to submit assignments
would have a face shield, a mask—so on and
and receive feedback. Examples include:
so forth. And any assignment that we had we
• Using an app on their tablets or computers to do reading or did not do any paper/pencil transfer. Everything
math exercises.
was done through Google Classroom, Nearpod,
• Submitting assignments via a learning platform; for example, Schoolnet and things of that nature. So in that
educators and parents mentioned Google Classroom (see respect that was kind of a good thing because
discussion group quotation), and the teacher can use it to grade when we were doing like Google Classroom,
the assignments and provide feedback within the platform.
I could actually look on the screen and see
everyone working in real time and I was able like
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Used Technology
to capture those moments in real time and tell
as a Strategy to Mitigate Learning Loss
them well you need to go back and maybe look
2020-21 School Year
at this or you need to go back, you know, and
Educational apps or platforms for subject
learning activities
look at that.
”
– Urban Teacher
Strategy used at least once or twice a week
77%
Strategy improved academic progress
“ One thing that I thought they did well—it was
more the school, not necessarily the teacher
for at least half of their students even though she did make the assignments—is
56% they used a platform…So my child was able to
work at a pace higher than what she normally
would have been able to do in a general
”
Apps or platforms to submit assignments education setting.
and provide feedback
Strategy used at least once or twice a week – Urban Parent
89%
Source: Discussion groups with teachers and parents of
students in public K-12 schools. | GAO-22-104487
Strategy improved academic progress
Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
for at least half of their students by teachers and parents in GAO discussion groups and
are not generalizable.
65%
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 3 percent
at the 95 percent confidence level. These measures are based on teachers’
perceptions. We asked teachers how many of their students were helped by each
of the learning loss strategies they reported using.
Page 14 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LEARNING LOSS
What We Heard
Other Helpful Strategies
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
In our survey, we asked teachers to describe other strategies In our two discussion groups with Department
that helped their students make academic progress.12 Some of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) parents
common themes that emerged from these responses included: and teachers, participants generally described
• Building relationships or social-emotional teaching strategies similar to our public K-12
connections with students discussion groups. DODEA discussion group
• Holding office hours or one-on-one check-ins; participants found the following strategies
being available to answer questions particularly helpful for addressing learning loss
among their students:
• Providing frequent feedback to students on work
• Setting expectations and standards
• Having flexibility—e.g., with deadlines or Flexible schedules for assignments
and instruction
assignment types
• Providing in-person instruction when possible
• Involving parents or guardians Parent and family involvement
in learning
• Having small groups or class sizes
Small group instruction or tutoring
Source: Discussion groups with teachers and parents of
students in DODEA schools. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The selected comments reflect themes
discussed by teachers and parents in GAO discussion
groups and are not generalizable.
12
We analyzed open-ended survey responses to the question “What other
strategies were most useful for helping your students make academic
progress?” and identified common themes. A common theme is one
mentioned in at least 20 teacher survey responses.
Page 15 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LEARNING LOSS
What We Heard
Asynchronous Instruction
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
Teachers indicated that several strategies, including
asynchronous instruction, helped fewer than half of their
“ …we allowed them to log on whenever they
could to try to increase student engagement so
students make academic progress. Teachers generally used that if they were working, they could log on, you
these strategies infrequently. However, 69 percent of teachers know, in the evening and get their work done
used asynchronous instruction regularly—at least once or then by watching the videos and stuff...but they
twice a week (see figure below).13 just didn’t feel like doing it. And so they just
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Used Asynchronous
took vacation.
” – Rural Teacher
Instruction as a Strategy to Mitigate Learning Loss
2020-21 School Year “ So we had about three months of the hybrid
model and what we found with the hybrid model
is when our students were at home for their two
Asynchronous instruction
days a week – they had two days in person—two
days at home—then everybody was online on
Strategy used at least once or twice a week Mondays – during those asynchronous days at
69% home, students—they didn’t participate, they
Strategy improved academic progress
didn’t login, they didn’t engage.
”
– Suburban Teacher
for at least half of their students
38% Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The selected comments reflect themes
discussed by teachers in GAO discussion groups and
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 3 are not generalizable.
percent at the 95 percent confidence level. These measures are based on
teachers’ perceptions. We asked teachers how many of their students were
helped by each of the learning loss strategies they reported using.
Educators and parents in our discussion groups also shared
stories about how asynchronous instruction resulted in student
disengagement and was perceived to be less effective than A-Z
other learning loss strategies. However, educators also
reported asynchronous instruction helped students make
academic progress in certain scenarios. For example, some
English learners benefited from the ability to watch recorded
lessons at their own pace. Examples of asynchronous instruction
activities include:
13
We used statistical models to analyze whether teachers reported that a • Watching recorded videos
particular strategy helped at least half of their students, holding constant teacher
circumstances, such as the percentage of high-poverty students a teacher
• Participating in self-paced online
may have had. These models confirmed our findings on the helpfulness of activities and assignments
asynchronous instruction. We estimated that about 34 percent of teachers in
• Working on hard copy packets and
virtual or hybrid environments reported asynchronous instruction helped most of
their students. worksheets
Page 16 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LEARNING LOSS
What We Heard
Other Strategies
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
“
Teachers used another six strategies that some found helpful I know for me on this end in years past we
in mitigating learning loss for at least half of their students. were required to do, you know, tutoring twice
These strategies were generally used infrequently (i.e., less
a week. This year, again because of the facts
than once a week).
of everything that we went through with the
• After-school or weekend tutoring (26 percent of teachers pandemic I did tutoring every day. And I did it
who used the strategy found it helpful for at least half of twice a day. I did it before or after school and
their students) then I did it during lunchtimes [as] well because
• One-on-one or small group meetings with counselors
(28 percent)
students ate lunch in our classroom.
”
– Suburban Teacher
• Team building/“get-to-know-you” activities (32 percent)
• Extended school day or flexible school day (e.g.,
allowing students to learn during times other than the
typical school day hours) (32 percent)
“ You know, some, we would do tutoring
sessions from 4 to 6. I had a teacher who loved
to do a tutoring session from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
• Discussing social/emotional needs with parents or
So those students that did have to get those jobs
guardians (35 percent)
or those students that, you know, just slept late,
• Small group work over devices (either remote or in
you know, let’s be honest, and that’s the time
person) (37 percent)
they wanted to work we were able to meet those
needs. I’m lucky that our district was able to
provide, you know, that teacher extra stipend to
work those hours or we could be a little flexible
with his daily schedule. So I think that really
helped out those kids a lot.
”
– Rural Principal
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers and principals. | GAO-22-104487
Note: The selected comments reflect themes by
teachers and principals in GAO discussion groups and
are not generalizable.
Page 17 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LEARNING LOSS
What We Heard
Learning Loss Mitigation Strategies
by Instructional Model
Source: GAO . | GAO-22-104487
Our survey showed that certain other strategies helped
students make academic progress depending on whether the “ …even though they think they can do well
virtually…[what’s] best is like one-to-one in
students were in person, hybrid, or virtual.
Some strategies were generally helpful to at least half of
person tutoring or learning.
”
– Rural Teacher
students, according to most teachers, when learning in
person:14
• small group work in person,
• use of paper packets or other physical materials, and
“ …we were in hybrid – the benefit…was that
when they were in person, I felt like the teacher
• one-on-one check-ins. was able to then talk to them directly about this
is the paper that you’re going to need virtually
Teachers in virtual and hybrid environments generally did not
tomorrow, these are the workbook sheets that
find strategies that helped at least half of their students make
you’re going to need. And they could show it to
academic progress. The majority of these teachers found the
them in person and really organize what they
following strategies helped fewer than half of their students:15
were going to need the next day…So there was
• increased number of teachers or staff to support
a lot less questions when we did have the virtual
student learning,
days to know these are exactly what pieces of
• individual or small group tutoring sessions during the
paper you need to bring home for tomorrow and,
school day,
• movement breaks,
you know, what exactly to work on.
”
• providing a flexible school day, – Suburban Parent
• use of paper packets or other physical materials (only
teachers in a virtual environment (not hybrid)), and Source: Discussion groups with teachers and parents of
• small group work in person (only teachers in a virtual students in public K-12 schools. | GAO-22-104487
environment (not hybrid)).16 Note: The selected comments reflect themes
discussed by teachers and parents in GAO discussion
groups and are not generalizable.
14
Our statistical modeling found similar patterns, holding constant teachers’
circumstances. These results were statistically significant at the 95 percent
confidence level.
15
These results were statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.
16
A majority of teachers in a hybrid environment found that small group work
in person was helpful to at least half of their students. All teachers were
asked about small group work in person, even those who spent the majority
of the school year in a virtual environment.
Page 18 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LEARNING LOSS
Q&A
QUESTION BOX
Learning Loss Mitigation Strategies
by Instructional Model (continued)
How did we use statistical
models to account for teachers’
We also asked teachers about using physical materials and circumstances?
movement breaks for mitigating learning loss. By holding
teachers’ circumstances constant, we estimate that: We used statistical models to analyze
• Teachers in an in-person environment who used paper whether teachers reported that a particular
packets or other physical materials had a greater chance strategy helped at least half of their students,
of reporting that these helped at least half of their students holding constant teacher circumstances, such
compared to teachers in virtual or hybrid environments.
as the percentage of high-poverty students a
– Among elementary school teachers, those with
teacher may have had. Due to the sample
in-person students had a 68 percent chance of
sizes of the subgroups, we created reliable
reporting paper packets helped at least half of
their students compared to a 50 percent chance estimates by grouping grade-level bands K-5,
for teachers with virtual or hybrid students. 6-8, and 9-12. We used grade-level bands for
– Among middle and high school teachers, those our statistical models that were different than
with in-person students had a 61 percent for other estimates, in order to increase our
chance of reporting paper packets helped at sample sizes and obtain reliable estimates.
least half of their students compared to a 34-38
We also combined teachers in virtual and
percent chance for teachers with virtual or hybrid
hybrid environments into one group and
students.
compared them to teachers in an in-person
• Among middle school teachers, those with in-person
students had a 40 percent chance of reporting at least environment.
half of their students were helped by movement breaks Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school
teachers. | GAO-22-104487
compared to a 26 percent chance for teachers with
virtual or hybrid students.17
17
These differences are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, Secretary of Defense, and appropriate congressional
committees. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff
members have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on page 22 of this report.
Sincerely yours,
Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Page 19 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
List of Committees
List of Committees
The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Adam Smith
Chairman Chairman
The Honorable Richard Shelby The Honorable Mike Rogers
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate House of Representatives
The Honorable Jack Reed The Honorable Robert C. “Bobby” Scott
Chairman Chairman
The Honorable James M. Inhofe The Honorable Virginia Foxx
Ranking Member Republican Leader
Committee on Armed Services Committee on Education and Labor
United States Senate House of Representatives
The Honorable Ron Wyden The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.
Chairman Chairman
The Honorable Mike Crapo The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Ranking Member Republican Leader
Committee on Finance Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States Senate House of Representatives
The Honorable Patty Murray The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Chair Chairman
The Honorable Richard Burr The Honorable John Katko
Ranking Member Ranking Member
Committee on Health, Education, Committee on Homeland Security
Labor and Pensions House of Representatives
United States Senate
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
The Honorable Gary C. Peters Chairwoman
Chairman The Honorable James Comer
The Honorable Rob Portman Ranking Member
Ranking Member Committee on Oversight and Reform
Committee on Homeland Security and House of Representatives
Governmental Affairs
United States Senate The Honorable Richard E. Neal
Chairman
The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro The Honorable Kevin Brady
Chair Republican Leader
The Honorable Kay Granger Committee on Ways and Means
Ranking Member House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Page 20 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
APPENDIX I: GAO Related Products
APPENDIX I | GAO RELATED PRODUCTS
Related Products
K-12 Education: An Estimated 1.1 Million Teachers Nationwide
Had At Least One Student Who Never Showed Up for Class
in the 2020-21 School Year. GAO-22-104581. Washington,
D.C.: March 23, 2022.
K-12 Education: Department of Education Should Help
States Address Student Testing Issues and Financial Risks
Associated with Virtual Schools, Particularly Virtual Charter
Schools. GAO-22-104444. Washington, D.C.: January 31,
2022.
COVID-19: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Accountability
and Program Effectiveness of Federal Response. GAO-22-
105051. Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2021.
COVID-19: Sustained Federal Action Is Crucial as Pandemic
Enters Its Second Year. GAO-21-387. Washington, D.C.:
March 31, 2021.
COVID-19: Urgent Actions Needed to Better Ensure an
Effective Federal Response. GAO-21-191. Washington, D.C.:
November 30, 2021.
Distance Learning: Challenges Providing Services to K-12
English Learners and Students with Disabilities during
COVID-19. GAO-21-43. Washington, D.C.: November 19,
2020.
Disaster Recovery: COVID-19 Pandemic Intensifies Disaster
Recovery Challenges for K-12 Schools. GAO-21-62R.
Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2020.
COVID-19: Federal Efforts Could Be Strengthened by Timely
and Concerted Actions. GAO-20-701. Washington, D.C.:
September 21, 2020.
Data Security: Recent K-12 Data Breaches Show That
Students Are Vulnerable to Harm. GAO-20-644. Washington,
D.C.: September 15, 2020.
COVID-19: Opportunities to Improve Federal Response and
Recovery Efforts. GAO-20-625. Washington, D.C.: June 25,
2020.
Page 21 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
APPENDIX II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
APPENDIX II | GAO CONTACT AND STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Jacqueline M. Nowicki
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues,
nowickij@gao.gov, (617) 788-0580
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the above, Nagla’a El-Hodiri (Assistant Director),
Jennifer Gregory (Analyst in Charge), Sherri Doughty, Maria
Gadel, Aaron Karty, Kirsten Lauber, Jessica Mausner, Jason
“Jay” Palmer, Sara Rizik, Paras Sharma, and Curtia Taylor made
key contributions to this report. Jim Ashley, Elizabeth Calderon,
Jill Lacey, Abigail Loxton, Almeta Spencer, Jeff Tessin, Kathleen
van Gelder, and Khristi Wilkins also made contributions to this
report.
Congressional Relations
A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, ClowersA@gao.gov,
(202) 512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G
Street NW, Room 7125, Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-
4800, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149, Washington, DC 20548
Strategic Planning and External Liaison
Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202)
512-4707, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7814, Washington, DC 20548
Connect with GAO
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our
Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.
(104487)
Page 22 GAO-22-104487 | Pandemic Learning Loss
GAO’s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs
and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and
funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected
in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on
its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence.
You can also subscribe to GAO’s email updates to receive notification
of newly posted products.
Order by Phone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact FraudNet:
Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Please Print on Recycled Paper
File and source
- File
- gao-22-104487.pdf
- Size
- 5,158,712 bytes
- SHA-256
- bc5c1868bef0d6ae006f2ccd649e9fc442054a4a08db53bd67db161d1962ce29
- Our copy
- gao-22-104487.pdf
- Original
- www.gao.gov