Full text
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Committees
MAY 2022
GAO-22-105815
PANDEMIC LEARNING
Teachers Reported Many
Obstacles for High-Poverty
Students and English
Learners As Well As Some
Mitigating Strategies
Source: Juan/stock.adobe.com.
Page ii
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
CONTENTS
GAO Highlights.................................................................................................................................. iii
Letter................................................................................................................................................... iv
Scope and Methodology...................................................................................................................v
Pandemic Instructional Models.......................................................................................................vii
SECTION 1: High-Poverty Students
Obstacles to Learning Virtually and Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss................................... 1
Lack of Access to School Meals....................................................................................................... 2
Lack of Appropriate Workspace and Difficulty Getting Assistance, Support, or Supervision........... 4
Inconsistent Attendance or Class Participation................................................................................ 6
Regularly Behind Academically........................................................................................................ 8
Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss for High-Poverty Students...................................................... 9
SECTION 2: English Learners
Obstacles to Learning Virtually and Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss .................................11
Lack of Access to School Meals and an Appropriate Workspace.................................................. 12
Difficulties with School Work.......................................................................................................... 14
Inconsistent Attendance and Limited or No Class Participation .................................................... 15
Regularly Behind Academically...................................................................................................... 16
Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss for English Learners ............................................................ 17
Other Helpful Strategies................................................................................................................. 18
SECTION 3: K-2 Students
Obstacles to Learning and Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss ............................................... 19
K-2 Student Obstacles................................................................................................................... 20
Strategies to Address Learning Loss for K-2 Students.................................................................. 22
List of Committees............................................................................................................................ 25
APPENDIX I: GAO Related Products.............................................................................................. 26
APPENDIX II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments............................................................ 27
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.
Highlights of GAO-22-105815, a report to
congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study
The COVID-19 pandemic
disrupted learning for millions of
students, educators, and families
who had to navigate in person
and virtual schooling. Students
in kindergarten through second
grade could be at increased risk
of compounded negative effects
of disrupted learning over time.
In addition, GAO’s prior work has
raised concerns about educational
disparities for students from high-
poverty schools and for English
learners. The 2020-21 school year
offered useful insights that may help
schools, educators, and parents in
the future.
The CARES Act includes a provision
for GAO to report on its ongoing
COVID-19 monitoring and oversight
efforts. This second report in a
series of three examines obstacles
to learning and strategies to mitigate
learning loss for high-poverty
students, English learners, and
students in grades K-2.
To address these objectives, GAO
contracted with Gallup to (1) conduct
a nationally representative survey
of elementary and secondary public
school teachers, and (2) arrange
virtual discussion groups with
teachers, principals, and parents of
K-12 students. 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).
GAO analyzed the resulting
survey data and discussion group
responses. GAO estimated margins
of error and statistical significance
at the 95 percent confidence level,
unless otherwise noted. To view the
first report, see GAO-22-104487.
To view more technical details on
GAO’s methods, see GAO-22-
105817.
View GAO-22-105815. For more
information, contact Jacqueline
M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or
nowickij@gao.gov.
What GAO Found
While the pandemic presented obstacles for many students during the 2020-21 school
year, GAO’s nationwide survey of public K-12 teachers showed that teachers with certain
vulnerable student populations were more likely to have students who faced significant
obstacles to learning and an increased risk of falling behind academically. GAO estimates
that teachers who taught in a virtual environment for the majority of the year with mostly
high-poverty students were about six to 23 times more likely to have students who lacked an
appropriate workspace, compared to all other teachers in their grade-level band (see figure).
Regarding strategies to address learning loss, GAO found, with one exception, no differences
between teachers of high- and low-poverty students.
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with High-Poverty Students Had More Students
Who Regularly Lacked an Appropriate Workspace
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with High-Poverty Students Compared to All
Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band, 2020-21 School Year
K-5
6-8
9-12
23.3 times more likely
9.8 times more likely
6.2 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: All estimates in this figure were statistically significant. To estimate these odds, we compared the
responses of teachers who taught in a virtual or hybrid environment for the majority of the 2020-21 school year
and who said that at least 81 percent of their students received free or reduced-price lunch, to all other teachers
in their grade-level band (both in person and virtual). 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. GAO estimates that nearly two-thirds of
K-5 teachers in a virtual environment with high-poverty students had at least half of their students lacking an
appropriate workspace compared to 24 percent of all other K-5 teachers. We are comparing the proportion of
teachers reporting that lacking an appropriate workspace was an obstacle for at least half of their students.
GAO also estimates that teachers in a virtual environment with a high percentage of English
learners (at least 20 percent) were more likely than their peers to have students who regularly
faced a variety of significant obstacles. These teachers were more likely to have students
who regularly struggled with understanding lessons, completing assignments, having an
appropriate workspace, accessing school meals, and getting adult assistance. Regarding
strategies to address learning loss, teachers with a high percentage of English learners
reported (1) small group work in person and (2) one-on-one check-ins between teachers and
students mitigated learning loss for at least half of their students.
Several strategies helped the youngest students make some academic progress despite
obstacles presented by the pandemic learning environment. Specifically, K-2 teachers
reported that their students had difficulty getting support, lacked appropriate workspaces, and
lacked tools for learning virtually. K-2 teachers found that movement breaks, small group work
in person, and tutoring during the school day helped at least half of their students.
Highlights
Teachers Reported Many Obstacles for High-
Poverty Students and English Learners As
Well As Some Mitigating Strategies
GAO Highlights
PANDEMIC LEARNING
MAY 2022
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Page iv
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
Letter
May 31, 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. As the
pandemic continued into the fall of 2020, 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 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.
Further, as we previously reported, the nation’s students faced major obstacles to learning through the 2020-21 school
year.1 Some students who were grappling with challenging circumstances prior to the pandemic were in more vulnerable
positions compared to their peers. Our prior work has highlighted long-standing concerns about educational disparities
for students from high-poverty schools and English learners. In addition, students in kindergarten through second grade
are facing new vulnerabilities, as they could be at increased risk of compounded negative effects of disrupted learning
over time if they fail to master the foundational skills needed to learn content in later grades.2 In many respects, the
2020-21 school year offers important insights into the struggles and successes these vulnerable students and their
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.3 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.
Our first report described obstacles to learning and strategies to mitigate learning loss that teachers found helped more
or fewer students.4 This second report in the series includes three sections, each focused on obstacles to learning and
strategies to mitigate learning loss for the following populations:
• high-poverty students,
• English learners, and
• the youngest students, those in kindergarten through second grade (K-2).
1 GAO, Pandemic Learning: As Students Struggled to Learn, Teachers Reported Few Strategies as Particularly Helpful to Mitigate Learning Loss, GAO-
22-104487 (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2022).
2 For this reason, we categorize K-2 students, whom we also refer to as “the youngest students,” as a vulnerable population in this report.
3 Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 19010, 134 Stat. 281, 579-81 (2020).
4 GAO-22-104487.
Page v
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
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.5
The survey asked teachers about their instructional models, adult support
provided to their students, difficulties their students faced, their students’
academic progress, strategies they used to mitigate learning loss, and
the extent to which their students were engaged in learning, among other
topics.6 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
sources combined. All estimates in this report have a margin of error less
than or equal to +/- 10 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
We analyzed the survey responses of 2,862 teachers, which are
generalizable to the population of all K-12 general education public school
teachers in the U.S.7 This analysis included disaggregation for each key
subgroup. Additionally, we used our survey data to estimate the likelihood
the teachers of vulnerable students said that their students experienced
certain difficulties or academic outcomes, relative to their grade level
colleagues. Specifically, we used an odds ratio model to create estimates,
which indicate the likelihood of teachers in a virtual environment with
high-poverty students or English learners reporting that their students
faced various learning difficulties and academic progress compared to all
5 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.
6 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.
7 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.
QUESTION BOX
Q&A
What is learning loss?
For the purposes of this report, learning
loss means the loss or reversal of
knowledge or skills as well as forgone
learning, which is the learning that
would have occurred under typical
circumstances. Learning loss may
accumulate over time, particularly if a
student misses a lot of classes.
Educators have used various strategies
to mitigate learning loss, such as
lengthening the school day or year,
offering summer school programs, and
implementing “high-dose” tutoring,
which can entail tutors working with
students every day, often one-to-one or
in small groups.
Source: Advance Illinois and the Chicago
Public Education Fund, From Crisis to
Recovery: The Education Impact of COVID-19:
Preparing to Meet Students’ Academic and
Social & Emotional Needs, Post-Disaster
(Chicago, IL: Apr 23, 2020) and Annenberg
Institute at Brown University, “Accelerating
Student Learning with High Dosage Tutoring,”
EdResearch for Recovery Series (Providence,
RI: Feb. 2021). | GAO-22-105815
Page vi
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
other teachers in the same grade-level band (i.e., grades K-5, 6-8, or 9-12).8 We also developed a series of statistical
models to describe the associations between teachers’ use of various strategies to address learning loss and teachers’
perceived effectiveness of the strategies. Our models estimated the probability that teachers’ reports that “about half or
more” of their students “improved their academic progress” differed by instructional model. We grouped responses to
each question, in order to increase the sample sizes. We estimated these probabilities separately by grade level, in-
person or hybrid and virtual instructional models, and a three-way categorization of the school’s FRPL participation. We
limited the survey respondents to those who responded to all relevant questions—a sub-sample that could vary across
learning strategies.
To gain further insight into the topics covered in the survey, we held 18 virtual discussion groups with public school
teachers (six groups), parents of students (six groups), and principals (six groups) between June 29 and July 14, 2021.9
We contracted with Gallup to recruit and arrange the K-12 public school groups. In total, Gallup segmented participant
category (teachers, parents, and principals) based on their school’s geographic 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 on 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. To
accommodate the schedules of participants, each discussion group was held by video conference in the evening for one
hour. 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.10
Additional technical details about our scope and methodology are provided in GAO-22-105817, which offers
supplementary technical material for all of our pandemic learning loss work issuing in May and June 2022. The material
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.
8 For the purposes of this report, the term “teachers in a virtual environment with high-poverty students” represents survey responses from teachers who
said that 81-100 percent of their students received free or reduced-price lunch and that these students spent the majority of the year learning in a virtual
or hybrid environment. The term “teachers in a virtual environment with English learners” represents survey responses from teachers who said that at
least 20 percent of their students were English learners and that these students spent the majority of the year learning in a virtual or hybrid environment.
We did not control for multiple effects in the odds ratio models, such as whether the school is urban, rural, or suburban.
9 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 our first pandemic learning loss report (see GAO-22-104487).
10 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.
Page vii
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
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.11
• 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.)
As we previously reported, we estimate 75 percent of teachers nationwide taught at least some of their students virtually
for the majority of the 2020-21 school year.12
11 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.
12 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. In total, about 60 percent of teachers reflected on their experiences teaching in virtual or hybrid environments and
about 40 percent of teachers reflected on their experiences teaching in person. See GAO-22-104487.
Page 1
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
PANDEMIC LEARNING
High-Poverty Students Faced Significant Obstacles to Learning
We recently reported that students experienced many obstacles to learning virtually. In addition,
we estimated that teachers in a virtual environment with high-poverty students were more
likely to report that their students faced certain obstacles. These obstacles included regularly
lacking an appropriate workspace, difficulty getting adult support or supervision, and attending
classes inconsistently. Compounded, these obstacles increase the risk of students falling behind
academically. Regarding strategies teachers found helpful in addressing learning loss, with one
exception, we found no differences between teachers with high- and low-poverty students.
KEY DEFINITION
For the purposes of this report,
we use “teachers in a virtual
environment with high-poverty
students,” to mean teachers who
spent the majority of the year teaching in a virtual
or hybrid environment and who said that at least
81 percent of their students received free or
reduced-price lunch.
SECTION
1
HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS:
Obstacles to Learning Virtually and Strategies
to Mitigate Learning Loss
A-Z
Keep in Mind
The findings in the following section are from our
nationwide survey of K-12 teachers and discussion
groups with parents, teachers, and principals, 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 or in a hybrid environment
(where “hybrid” means students spent some days
learning remotely and others in the classroom).
Similarly, “in person” means students spent the
majority of the year learning in the classroom.
In this section
•
We present odds ratios that compare responses
from teachers in a virtual environment with high-
poverty students to their peers. We define “peers” as
teachers in the same grade-level band (i.e., K-5, 6-8,
or 9-12), in either in-person or virtual environments,
who reported that less than 81 percent of their
students received free or reduced-price lunch.
•
We refer to “teachers in a virtual environment with
high-poverty students” having “more students” facing
certain obstacles than their peers. In some cases,
the comparison is strictly about the 2020-21 school
year, meaning a higher proportion of these teachers
reported that at least half of their students faced the
obstacle, whereas their peers were more likely to
report less than half of their students did. In other
cases, the comparison involves a typical school
year—a recent year prior to the pandemic—meaning
a higher proportion of these teachers reported that
more of their students were affected by the obstacle
in the 2020-21 school year.
•
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
learning environment).
Page 2
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS
When asked whether they had more students who lacked a
school meal compared to a typical school year, teachers in
a virtual environment with high-poverty students were about
three to four times more likely than their peers to respond
affirmatively (see figure below).
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with High-Poverty
Students Had More Students Who Lacked a School Meal
Compared to a Typical Year
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with High-Poverty Students
Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band
K-5
6-8
9-12
4.3 times more likely
3.1 times more likely
3.3 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: All estimates in this figure were statistically significant. To estimate these
odds, we compared the responses of teachers who taught in a virtual or hybrid
environment for the majority of the 2020-21 school year and who said that at
least 81 percent of their students received free or reduced-price lunch, to all
other teachers in their grade-level band (both in person and virtual). 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. For this question, we asked teachers to compare their
experiences to those in a pre-pandemic year.
QUESTION BOX
Q&A
What are odds ratios?
Our odds ratio models estimate the
likelihood that teachers working in
certain circumstances reported various
learning difficulties and academic
progress, compared to all other
teachers in their grade-level bands. Due
to the sample sizes of the subgroups
discussed in this report, we created
reliable estimates by grouping grade
levels K-5, 6-8, and 9-12.
For example, in the adjacent figure, K-5
teachers in a virtual environment with
high-poverty students had an odds ratio
of 4.3 in response to a question about
students lacking a school meal
compared to a typical year. In other
words, these teachers were about four
times more likely than all other K-5
teachers to report that their students
lacked a school meal in 2020-21
compared to a typical pre-pandemic
year.
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public
school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Lack of Access to School Meals
What We Heard
Page 3
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS
“
Some of my students had to work and they
could not log on virtually because otherwise
they couldn’t eat…It was frightening for me as a
teacher to watch those students…in a pandemic
and not having money where they couldn’t eat,
or they didn’t have access to internet, or they had
to work for income. It was hard to watch those
students. And it was difficult for me mentally to
watch those students suffer. So those students
really suffered this past school year.”
– Suburban Teacher
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comment reflects themes
discussed by teachers in GAO discussion groups
and is not generalizable.
QUESTION BOX
Q&A
Why did we analyze responses for teachers in a
virtual environment with high-poverty students?
In many ways, the pandemic exacerbated
long-standing inequities in educational resources
available to high-poverty and low-poverty students.
For example, in 2018 we found that high-poverty
schools were less likely to offer the math and
science courses that most public 4-year colleges
expect students to take in high school. In addition,
many high-poverty students rely on the National
School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program. These programs aim to help improve child
nutrition and combat child hunger by subsidizing
school meals. During the 2020-21 school year,
high-poverty students’ typical access to school meals
was disrupted when school buildings closed due to
the pandemic.
Source: GAO, K-12 Education: Public High Schools with More
Students in Poverty and Smaller Schools Provide Fewer Academic
Offerings to Prepare for College, GAO-19-8 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 11, 2018). | GAO-22-105815
Note: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 established the Title I program. Title I, Part A of the ESEA,
as amended, (Title I) provides formula grants to states for their
school districts to improve educational programs in schools with
high concentrations of students from low-income families. The
purpose of Title I is to provide all children significant opportunity
to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to
close educational achievement gaps. These gaps, and the Title I
program, remain in effect today.
Lack of Access to School Meals
(continued)
What We Heard
Page 4
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS
Lack of Appropriate Workspace and
Difficulty Getting Assistance, Support,
or Supervision
Across all K-12 grades, we estimate that teachers in a virtual
environment with high-poverty students were about six to 23
times more likely to have students who regularly experienced
challenges finding an appropriate workspace. An appropriate
workspace is one free of distractions. Also, when asked if their
students had more difficulty getting assistance, support, or
supervision compared to a typical school year, these teachers
were more likely than their peers to respond affirmatively (see
figures below).
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with High-Poverty
Students Had More Students Who Regularly Lacked an
Appropriate Workspace
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with High-Poverty Students
Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band,
2020-21 School Year
K-5
6-8
9-12
23.3 times
more likely
9.8 times
more likely
6.2 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. │ GAO-22-105815
Note: All estimates in this figure were statistically significant. To estimate
these odds, we compared the responses of teachers who taught in a virtual
or hybrid environment for the majority of the 2020-21 school year and who
said that at least 81 percent of their students received free or reduced-price
lunch, to all other teachers in their grade-level band (both in person and
virtual). 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. We estimate that nearly
two-thirds of K-5 teachers in a virtual environment with high-poverty students
had at least half of their students lacking an appropriate workspace compared
to 24 percent of all other K-5 teachers. We are comparing the proportion of
teachers reporting that lacking an appropriate workspace was an obstacle for
at least half of their students.
Source: nadezhda1906/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-105815
“
A lot of our students come from poor
conditions and their safe place is school and
we took away their safe place and then told
them to do work in that unsafe place, right?…
And it’s really hard to reach out to a screen...you
can only be so loving through TV. And I think it
was just a lot…the depression, the not having
enough food, you know, those kind of things
affected a lot of my students.”
– Urban Teacher
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comment reflects themes
discussed by teachers in GAO discussion groups
and is not generalizable.
Page 5
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS
Source: Rawpixel.com/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-105815
Estimated Likelihood that Teachers with High-Poverty
Students Had More Students Who Had Difficulty Getting
Assistance, Support, or Supervision at Their Workspace
Compared to a Typical Year
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with High-Poverty Students
Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band
K-5
6-8
(3.8 times more likely)
9-12
4.1 times more likely
3.8 times more likely
2.2 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. │ GAO-22-105815
Note: All estimates in this figure were statistically significant. To estimate these
odds, we compared the responses of teachers who taught in a virtual or hybrid
environment for the majority of the 2020-21 school year and who said that at
least 81 percent of their students received free or reduced-price lunch, to all
other teachers in their grade-level band (both in person and virtual). 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. For this question, we asked teachers to compare their
experiences to those in a pre-pandemic year.
Lack of Appropriate Workspace and Difficulty Getting Assistance,
Support, or Supervision (continued)
What We Heard
Page 6
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS
Inconsistent Attendance or
Class Participation
Teachers in a virtual environment with high-poverty students
were more likely than their peers to have students who attended
classes inconsistently. For example, high school teachers were
about five times more likely to have students who regularly did not
attend class at all (see figure below). In addition, we estimate
that K-5 teachers were about four times more likely to have
students who regularly arrived late or departed early from class.
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with High-Poverty
Students Had More Students Who Regularly Were Absent
or Missed Part of Class
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with High-Poverty Students
Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band,
2020-21 School Year
Absence from school or class
K-5
6-8
9-12
3.2 times more likely
2.8* times more likely
4.6 times more likely
Late arrival to or early departure from class
K-5
6-8
9-12
4.4 times more likely
2.8 times more likely
2.4 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
*Odds ratio was not statistically significant.
Note: All estimates in this figure were statistically significant, unless otherwise noted. To
estimate these odds, we compared the responses of teachers who taught in a virtual or
hybrid environment for the majority of the 2020-21 school year and who said that at least
81 percent of their students received free or reduced-price lunch, to all other teachers in
their grade-level band (both in person and virtual). 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. We are comparing the proportion of teachers reporting
that an absence or a late arrival to or early departure from class was an obstacle for at least
half of their students.
Source: Artem Shadrin/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-105815
“
[Students] quickly learned…If [they] logged in
on [their] Chromebook…even 30 seconds during
the day, they were counted present. And it was
those kids that…also tended to be students from
lower income, several were [English learner]
students and a lot of them ended up…with less
than a 50 average for the year, but because of
the pandemic…are just going to be passed on to
the next year.”
– Suburban Teacher
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comment reflects themes
discussed by teachers in GAO discussion groups
and is not generalizable.
Page 7
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS
Source: Georgy Dzyura/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-105815
In addition, we estimate that teachers in a virtual environment
with high-poverty students were more likely than their peers
to have students who regularly had limited or no class
participation. For example, middle school teachers were about
seven times more likely to have students with limited or no
class participation.
Inconsistent Attendance or Class Participation (continued)
What We Heard
Page 8
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS
Regularly Behind Academically
Across all grade levels and compared to their peers, teachers
in a virtual environment with high-poverty students were more
likely to have students who were regularly behind academically;
this was especially true for older students. Most notably, in the
virtual environment, middle school teachers with high-poverty
students were about 44 times more likely to have students who
were regularly failing a class or significantly behind in meeting
academic standards for a subject (see figure below).
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with High-Poverty
Students Had More Students Who Were Regularly Behind
Academically
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with High-Poverty Students
Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band,
2020-21 School Year
K-5
6-8
9-12
2.7 times more likely
44.1 times more likely
4.7 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: We defined “behind academically” to mean failing a class or being
significantly behind academic standards for a subject. All estimates in this
figure were statistically significant. To estimate these odds, we compared the
responses of teachers who taught in a virtual or hybrid environment for the
majority of the 2020-21 school year and who said that at least 81 percent of
their students received free or reduced-price lunch, to all other teachers in
their grade-level band (both in person and virtual). 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. We estimate that 55 percent of grades 6-8 teachers in a virtual
environment with high-poverty students had at least half of their students
regularly fail a class or fall significantly behind compared to 29 percent of
all other grades 6-8 teachers. We are comparing the proportion of teachers
reporting that being regularly behind academically was an obstacle for at least
half of their students.
Source: adragan/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-105815
Source: Rido/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-105815
“
I just thought the virtual format, period, just
wasn’t effective for any of our low-income
students. In middle school it’s almost like if
you’re virtual you have to have the ability to
teach yourself. The teachers can tutor you but
unless you’re a strong student on grade level,
you really just got to come back to school. We
just had to do the best we can until we can get
back to school.”
– Urban Principal
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
principals. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comment reflects themes
discussed by principals in GAO discussion groups
and is not generalizable.
What We Heard
Page 9
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS
Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss
for High-Poverty Students
Generally, the strategies that the majority of teachers with high-
poverty students perceived as helping to mitigate learning
loss for at least half of their students were the same as those
for teachers with low-poverty students. However, virtual live
instruction was the exception (see figure below).
Estimated Percentage of Teachers Who Perceived
That Live, Virtual Instruction Helped at Least Half
Their Students
Public K-12 Teachers, 2020-21 School Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
81
28
27
Percentage of teachers who reported at least half
their students were helped
Low-poverty live,
virtual instruction
High-poverty live,
virtual instruction
64
50
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: There is a significant statistical difference between high and low poverty
for this strategy at the 95 percent confidence level. The margin of error for
all percentages was less than or equal to 7 percent. The term “teachers
with high-poverty students” represents survey responses from teachers who
said that 81-100 percent of their students were eligible to participate in the
school’s free or reduced-price lunch program. The term “teachers with low-
poverty students” represents survey responses from teachers who said that
0-20 percent of their students were eligible to participate in the school’s free
or reduced-price lunch program.
“
All of the students that I work with are…
students of color in or around the [high-poverty]
category. And the strategies for connecting with
them honestly is just relationships…the thing that
really was the most impactful was, you know,
being flexible with how they showed their work—
how they showed their learning…Deadlines—I
threw those out the window…I’m not putting
more on their plate because…they were also
caring for their siblings or they were also doing
a job or they were also, you know, with one of
their grownups at work. So many other things
going on in their life that it wasn’t really feasible
to expect school to happen the same way that it
would if we were in person.”
– Urban Teacher
“
Home visits were the most effective for…
those from [high-poverty] households. Home
visits included the delivery of [wifi] devices and
personalized instruction in the use of Canvas.”
– Rural Principal
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers and principals. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comments reflect themes
discussed by teachers and principals in GAO
discussion groups and are not generalizable.
What We Heard
Page 10
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 1 | HIGH-POVERTY STUDENTS
“
And in my school, there’s…primarily [high-
poverty] families…it’s a complete wash. There
was very little learned virtually. In person was a
different story because they finally did…small
group instruction and stuff like that.”
– Urban Teacher
“
Our [high-poverty] students did seem to thrive
from that extra support. So by hiring those extra
individuals we did see a little bit of a payback on
those kiddos.”
– Rural Principal
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers and principals. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comments reflect themes
discussed by teachers and principals in GAO
discussion groups and are not generalizable.
QUESTION BOX
Q&A
What does “students were helped” by a strategy or
“their academic progress improved” mean?
To determine whether teachers perceived particular
strategies to be helpful to their students, we asked the
following two questions:
• Approximately, how often during this school year
have you used the following strategies to support
learning or address learning loss?
• How many of your students improved their
academic progress as a result of 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 students. For more details on survey
questions and responses, see GAO-22-105817.
We did not ask the teachers to use assessment (or
standardized test) data, in part because assessments
are often not designed to evaluate the effectiveness of
any specific strategy.
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. |
GAO-22-105815
Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss
for High-Poverty Students (continued)
Page 11
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
PANDEMIC LEARNING
English Learners Struggled With Several Significant Obstacles, Including
Understanding the Lessons Presented
English learners experienced the full range of obstacles discussed in our first report in this series.
Further, we estimate that teachers who were teaching in a virtual environment with at least 20
percent English learners were more likely than their peers to have students who regularly faced
significant obstacles. For example, English learners struggled with understanding lessons and
completing assignments, having an appropriate workspace, accessing school meals, and getting
assistance at their workspace. As with high-poverty students, the greater prevalence of these
obstacles increases the risk of English learners falling further behind over the years. According to
our estimates, teachers with at least 20 percent English learners found that certain strategies—
specifically small group work in person and one-on-one check-ins between teacher and student—
were particularly helpful in mitigating learning loss, regardless of instructional model.
Keep in Mind
The findings in the following section are from our
nationwide survey of K-12 teachers and discussion
groups with parents, teachers, and principals, 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 or in a hybrid environment
(where “hybrid” means students spent some days
learning remotely and others in the classroom).
Similarly, “in person” means students spent the
majority of the year learning in the classroom.
KEY DEFINITION
For the purposes of this report,
we use “teachers in a virtual
environment with English
learners” to mean teachers who
spent the majority of the year
teaching in a virtual or hybrid environment and who
said that a high percentage—at least 20 percent—
of their students were English learners.
A-Z
SECTION
2
ENGLISH LEARNERS:
Obstacles to Learning Virtually and Strategies
to Mitigate Learning Loss
In this section
•
We present odds ratios that compare responses
from teachers in a virtual environment with at least
20 percent English learners to their peers. We define
“peers” as teachers in the same grade-level band
(i.e., K-5, 6-8, or 9-12), in either in-person or virtual
environments, who reported that less than 20 percent
of their students were English learners.
•
We refer to “teachers in a virtual environment with
English learners” having “more students” facing
certain obstacles. In some cases, the comparison
is strictly about the 2020-21 school year, meaning
a higher proportion of these teachers reported that
at least half of their students faced the obstacle,
whereas their peers were more likely to report that
less than half of their students did. In other cases,
the comparison involves a typical school year—a
recent year prior to the pandemic—meaning a higher
proportion of these teachers reported that more of
their students were affected by the obstacle in the
2020-21 school year.
•
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).
Page 12
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | ENGLISH LEARNERS
When asked whether they had more students who lacked a
school meal compared to a typical school year, teachers in a
virtual environment with English learners were about three to
seven times more likely than their peers to respond affirmatively
(see figure below). Elementary teachers were also about 37
times more likely to have students who regularly lacked an
appropriate workspace, free from distractions (see figure on
next page).
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with English Learners
Had More Students Who Lacked a School Meal Compared
to a Typical Year
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with English Learners
Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band
K-5
6-8
9-12
6.8 times more likely
2.5 times more likely
2.5 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: All estimates in this figure were statistically significant. To estimate these
odds, we compared the responses of teachers who taught in a virtual or hybrid
environment for the majority of the 2020-21 school year and who said that at
least 20 percent of their students were English learners, to all other teachers
in their grade-level band (both in person and virtual). 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. For this question, we asked teachers to compare their experiences
to those in a pre-pandemic year.
QUESTION BOX
Q&A
Why did we analyze responses for
teachers in a virtual environment
with English learners?
English learners face the dual challenge
of concurrently learning English and
grade-level content. As we reported in
2020, during the decade prior to the
pandemic, the academic achievement
gap between English learners and
English proficient students persisted in
both reading and math. Also, our prior
work on learning during the pandemic
found that for some English learners, the
shift to virtual learning made it more
difficult to fully participate in school. For
example, English learners lost
opportunities to converse in English with
adults and peers at school.
Source: GAO analysis of Distance Learning:
Challenges to Providing Services to K-12 English
Learners and Students with Disabilities during
COVID-19, GAO-21-43 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19,
2020). | GAO-22-105815
Lack of Access to School Meals and an Appropriate Workspace
Page 13
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | ENGLISH LEARNERS
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with English Learners Had More Students Who Regularly Lacked an
Appropriate Workspace
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with English Learners Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level
Band, 2020-21 School Year
K-5
6-8
9-12
36.7 times more likely
11.1 times more likely
9.3 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: All estimates in this figure were statistically significant. To estimate these odds, we compared the responses of teachers who taught in a
virtual or hybrid environment for the majority of the 2020-21 school year and who said that at least 20 percent of their students were English
learners, to all other teachers in their grade-level band (both in person and virtual). We estimate 60 percent of virtual teachers of English
learners in grades K-5 had at least half of their students lacking an appropriate workspace compared to 26 percent of all other K-5 teachers.
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. We are comparing the proportion of teachers reporting that lacking an
appropriate workspace was an obstacle for at least half of their students.
Lack of Access to School Meals and an Appropriate Workspace
(continued)
What We Heard
Page 14
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
“
I teach in a…school where I have a lot of
[English learners]…And a lot of them didn’t have
parents at home that could support them, or they
were working, you know, moms were working,
sisters were working. So I don’t think they had
the support they needed at home…the parents
weren’t able to help them like I would be able to
help them in a classroom.”
– Suburban Teacher
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comment reflects themes
discussed by teachers in GAO discussion groups
and is not generalizable.
Difficulties with School Work
Teachers in a virtual environment with English learners were also
more likely than their peers to have students who regularly had
difficulty understanding and completing class work, according
to our estimates. For example, such middle school teachers
were about six times more likely to have students who regularly
struggled to understand lessons and complete class assignments
(see figure below). Additionally, across all grade levels these
teachers were about three to 18 times more likely than their
peers to have students who regularly had difficulty getting
needed assistance, support, or supervision at their workspace.
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with English Learners
Had More Students Who Regularly Had Difficulty with
School Work
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with English Learners
Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band,
2020-21 School Year
Difficulty completing class assignments
K-5
6-8
9-12
3.1 times more likely
5.8 times more likely
4.1 times more likely
Difficulty understanding lessons
K-5
6-8
9-12
3.8 times more likely
5.7 times more likely
2.7 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: All estimates in this figure were statistically significant. To estimate these odds, we
compared the responses of teachers who taught in a virtual or hybrid environment for the
majority of the 2020-21 school year and who said that at least 20 percent of their students
were English learners, to all other teachers in their grade-level band (both in person and
virtual). 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. We are
comparing the proportion of teachers reporting that difficulty understanding lessons or
difficulty completing class assignments was an obstacle for at least half of their students.
SECTION 2 | ENGLISH LEARNERS
Source: Satjawat/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-105815
What We Heard
Page 15
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
“
One of my biggest frustrations though was
the [English learners] who would not get online
at all…And I would try to call the families and
tell them…[but] I couldn’t communicate with the
parents to have them follow through and make
sure that their kids were [in virtual class]”
– Rural Teacher
“
In the classroom I had a lot of [English
learners] and they didn’t learn. They didn’t try
and – because if they were to try, they’d have to
try extremely hard since I can’t speak Spanish.
Nor was I even allowed to speak Spanish to
them…I have to speak in English so they can be
immersed. And it’s just…hard to teach algebra
like the quadratic formula in English and they
don’t know what I’m saying. It’s hard for a kid
who speaks English. And then…if you add the
virtual thing? Forget it. It just feels impossible
for them. I don’t blame them for not doing much
work or any work in a lot of cases.”
– Urban Teacher
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comments reflect themes
discussed by teachers in GAO discussion groups
and are not generalizable.
Inconsistent Attendance and Limited
or No Class Participation
We estimate that elementary and high school teachers in a
virtual environment with English learners were more likely than
their peers to have students who attended class inconsistently.
For example, these teachers were about three times more
likely to have students who regularly arrived late to class or
left early. These teachers were also about three to four times
more likely to have students who regularly had limited or no
participation when attending class (see figure below).
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with English
Learners Had More Students Who Regularly Showed
Signs of Limited Engagement
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with English Learners
Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band,
2020-21 School Year
Late arrival to or early departure from class
K-5
6-8
9-12
Limited or no class participation
K-5
6-8
9-12
—**
2.6 times more likely
3.2 times more likely
2.0* times more likely
2.7 times more likely
3.7 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
*Odds ratio was not statistically significant.
**The data available were insufficient to create a reliable estimate for grades 6 through 8.
Note: All estimates in this figure were statistically significant, unless otherwise noted. To
estimate these odds, we compared the responses of teachers who taught in a virtual or
hybrid environment for the majority of the 2020-21 school year and who said that at least
20 percent of their students were English learners, to all other teachers in their grade-
level band (both in person and virtual). 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. We are comparing the proportion of teachers reporting that
a late arrival to or early departure from class or limited or no class participation was an
obstacle for at least half of their students.
SECTION 2 | ENGLISH LEARNERS
Page 16
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | ENGLISH LEARNERS
Regularly Behind Academically
Across all grade levels, teachers in a virtual environment with
English learners were more likely to have students who were
regularly behind academically, according to our estimates. For
example, middle school teachers were about five times more
likely to have students who were regularly failing a class or
significantly behind meeting academic standards for a subject
(see figure below).
Estimated Likelihood That Teachers with English
Learners Had More Students Who Were Regularly
Behind Academically
Teachers in a Virtual Environment with English Learners
Compared to All Other Teachers in Their Grade-level Band,
2020-21 School Year
K-5
6-8
9-12
2.5 times more likely
4.8 times more likely
4.2 times more likely
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: We defined “behind academically” to mean failing a class or being
significantly behind academic standards for a subject. All estimates in this
figure were statistically significant. To estimate these odds, we compared the
responses of teachers who taught in a virtual or hybrid environment for the
majority of the 2020-21 school year and who said that at least 20 percent of
their students were English learners, to all other teachers in their grade-level
band (both in person and virtual). 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. We are
comparing the proportion of teachers reporting that being regularly behind
academically was an obstacle for at least half of their students.
Additionally, when asked whether they had more students
who made less academic progress in the 2020-21 school year
compared to a typical school year, elementary school teachers
in a virtual environment with English learners were about twice
as likely as their peers to respond affirmatively. At the high
school level, these teachers were also about six times more
likely than their peers to have students who were behind grade
level at the end of the 2020-21 school year.
Source: Matthew Benoit/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-105815
Source: Reidos/stock.adobe.com. | GAO-22-105815
Page 17
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 2 | ENGLISH LEARNERS
Strategies to Mitigate Learning Loss for English Learners
Our survey found that the majority of teachers with a high percentage (at least 20 percent) of English learners
reported two strategies that mitigated learning loss for at least half of their students: one-on-one check-ins
between teachers and students, and small group work in person (see figure below). The majority of teachers
with a low percentage of English learners also reported that small group work in person helped at least half
of their students. The success of these strategies suggests that English learners benefited from having more
individualized attention and support in their learning.
Strategies That Teachers with a High Percentage of English Learners Reported Improved Academic
Progress for at Least Half of Their Students Compared to Other Teachers
Public K-12 Teachers, 2020-21 School Year
High Percentage of English Learners
(English learners comprised 20% or more of a
teacher’s students)
Small group work in person
One-on-one check-ins between teacher
and student
Low Percentage of English Learners
(English learners comprised less than 20% of a
teacher’s students)
Small group work in person
Use of paper packets, manipulatives, or
other physical instructional materials
Strategies
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: A majority of teachers surveyed reported that the strategies listed helped at least half of their students. This is the teacher’s perception
of what was helpful to students. These results were statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. The margin of error for all
percentages was less than or equal to 7 percent.
What We Heard
Page 18
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
“
I think that asynchronous instructional piece
where students have a chance to watch a
video of someone else’s commentary and
then respond to it gave English learners some
chances to play a video over and over so that
they could truly understand what their peers
were saying and rehearse their response. So
if they didn’t like the first video, they made…a
different one. And I think that allowed for our
English learners to participate more with the
learning targets and to build language around
those targets during instruction.”
– Urban Principal
“
[F]or a lot [of students], especially my kiddos
who are English learners, we printed out sheets
with their assignments each week that they could
take home with them and check off. And the
thing that was most helpful for them was to be
really specific to where to find that assignment
because they had so many teachers, so many
assignments. We were really, really specific and
made it to where the parents could even follow
it – like here’s where you start on their computer,
what do you click, what should you see. And
that…seemed to get them to…turn in their work
a lot more…”
– Rural Teacher
Source: Discussion groups with public K-12 school
teachers and principals. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comments reflect themes
discussed by teachers and principals in GAO
discussion groups and are not generalizable.
SECTION 2 | ENGLISH LEARNERS
Other Helpful Strategies
We also asked teachers to describe the most helpful strategies
for teaching English learners. Some teachers emphasized
strategies we asked about elsewhere in the survey, such as
more staff, as helpful for English learners. Other teachers
described different strategies that are unique to the English
learning experience. Strategies unique to English learners
tended to focus on giving these students extra, and sometimes
individualized, support as they learn English along with the
rest of the curriculum. Common themes in teacher responses
were:13
• Allowing for flexibility in the media students could
use to submit assignments (e.g., using physical
materials, apps, or videos)
• Focusing on vocabulary building
• Giving one-on-one or individual attention
• Providing support from ESL (English as a Second
Language) teachers or other school staff (e.g.,
paraprofessionals, social workers, or counselors)
• Using audio for reading or directions, or doing
listening drills
• Using captioning
• Using images, graphics, or other visuals
• Using sentence or paragraph framing or starters
• Using translator services (e.g., Google Translate)
• Working in small groups
13 Open-ended survey responses are not generalizable. We defined a common
theme as one identified in 20 separate teacher survey responses.
Page 19
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
K-2 Students Were More Affected by Certain Learning Obstacles
Mastering the fundamentals of reading in the early grades is essential for lasting academic
success.14 K-2 students were newer to school during the pandemic and had to learn how to be
students, while their parents and teachers were learning how to support virtual learning. K-2
students encountered some of the same learning obstacles as older students, but a greater
percentage of K-2 teachers reported that their students encountered certain obstacles, such as
the need for substantial support or assistance to participate in virtual learning; lack of appropriate
workspaces; and lack of tools for learning. However, a greater percentage of K-2 teachers than
other teachers reported that strategies such as movement breaks and tutoring were helpful.
Keep in Mind
The findings in this section are from 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
or in a hybrid environment (where “hybrid”
means students spent some days learning
remotely and others in the classroom). Similarly,
“in person” means when students spent the
majority of the year learning 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.)
14 Department of Education, “Read Where You Are: Reading at Grade Level”, accessed March 30, 2022, https://www2.ed.gov/readwhereyouare/
index.html
PANDEMIC LEARNING
SECTION
3
K-2 STUDENTS:
Obstacles to Learning and Strategies to
Mitigate Learning Loss
What we heard...
“
I had a preschooler and newborn, so I was usually
unable to help [my kindergartners] on the technology
platforms. Kindergartners cannot read or write at the start
of the school year, so he struggled to find the answers he
needed. Another negative was that it was a completely
different (and less desirable) introduction to school. He is
less excited about school now.”
– Suburban Parent
“
I would say that specifically for early learners…the virtual
setting was very difficult…teaching five year olds how to
use a computer if they don’t have an adult there with them
at all times was not conducive to their learning.”
– Suburban Principal
Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents of students in
public K-12 schools. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed by
principals and parents in GAO discussion groups and are not
generalizable.
Page 20
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
Teachers reported that K-2 students encountered the following obstacles to learning:
• Difficulty getting support. We asked teachers about their students who needed substantial support; an
estimated 64 percent of K-2 teachers reported that less than half of such students received enough support
during the school day. An estimated 76 percent of K-2 teachers reported that less than half of their students
who needed substantial support got enough support after school (e.g., for homework).
• Lack of appropriate workspace. An estimated 37 percent of K-2 teachers reported that half or more of
their students regularly lacked an appropriate workspace.
• Lack of tools for learning. While teachers across all grades reported that their students had difficulties
using technology to participate in learning, this was more pronounced for teachers of K-2 students
compared to, in some cases, teachers of students in higher grades (see figure below).
Estimated Percentage of Teachers with Students Who Lacked Tools for Learning
Public K-12 Teachers, 2020-21 School Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent
Grades 9-12
Grades 3-8
Grades K-2
More of their students had
difficulty using technology to
participate in learning
Compared to a typical
pre-pandemic school year
Difficulty using technology
to participate in learning
Lack of reliable internet
service
Teachers reported that half or more
of their students had this difficulty
38
28
11*
13
29*
5
7
17*
14*
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
*There is no significant difference between the following estimates: (1) grades 9-12 compared with either grades K-2 or 3-8 regarding difficulty
using technology to participate in learning compared to a typical pre-pandemic school year; (2) grades K-2 and 3-8 regarding difficulty
using technology to participate in learning where teachers reported that half or more of their students had this difficulty; and (3) grades K-2
compared with either grades 3-8 or 9-12 regarding lack of reliable internet service where teachers reported that half or more of their students
had this difficulty.
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 8 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
K-2 Student Obstacles
SECTION 3 | K-2 STUDENTS
What We Heard
Page 21
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
“
For our youngest, because he was in first
grade, he had a really hard time…staying on
task…[I]t was really hard because his teacher
didn’t understand the internet…So she would
send the kids these little links that they can
click on and go through, but it didn’t have any
directions or how to get there so a lot of kids got
lost and confused.”
– Rural Parent
“
[W]e had kindergarteners that finished 75%
of their first year that will be entering second
grade this year without having [entered] into a
classroom…kindergarten is a lot of socialization.
And so not having been around kids and in
teams and systems within the classroom, they’re
going to be second graders this year and we’re
going to institute some kindergarten routines to
second graders. So that’s going to significantly
impact our ability to start the year as normal.”
– Urban Principal
“
But for our youngest – he’s kind of always been
awkward around other kids and that definitely
was not helped this year. So he was still very
much awkward little guy who doesn’t know how
to hang out with other people his age.”
– Rural Parent
“
I would say from my perspective in the early
childhood area, it was very, very difficult to get
students to engage through the computer and
a lot of the early learning skills are very face-to-
face driven – kids need to hear, they need to see
how the mouth is formed. And so not having that
consistently…was very difficult.”
– Suburban Principal
Source: Discussion groups with principals and parents of
students in public K-12 schools. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comments reflect themes discussed
by principals and parents in GAO discussion groups
and are not generalizable.
Other obstacles affecting K-2 students included emotional
distress and disengagement. The figure below shows the
percentage of K-2 teachers who reported that they had
students affected by these obstacles. In addition, teachers
reported that several factors contributed to their students’
disengagement. For example, 27 percent of K-2 teachers
with disengaged students reported that their students’
responsibility providing care to a family member interfered
with their learning. In our discussion groups, educators and
parents talked about how younger students were negatively
affected by fewer social connections and were still learning
what it is like to attend school or the way a typical in person
school day is structured.
Estimated Percentage of K-2 Teachers Whose Students
Were Disengaged or Experienced Emotional Distress
Public K-2 Teachers, 2020-21 School Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
25
28
20
27
63
27
16
More of their students were disengaged
(Compared to a typical pre-pandemic school year)
Percent
Emotional distress
(Teachers reported that half or more of
their students had this difficulty)
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The margin of error for all percentages was less than or equal to +/- 8
percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
SECTION 3 | K-2 STUDENTS
K-2 Student Obstacles
(continued)
What We Heard
Page 22
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 3 | K-2 STUDENTS
“
[We] use a lot of visuals for them…so always
attaching [a] picture with the word. Plus we had
the kids that couldn’t read so the picture was
really helpful. We found that…we could record
the directions…for those kids that couldn’t
necessarily read…They still could understand
what they were supposed to do. So that was a
helpful step for them…sometimes having the
paper copies of things was helpful when you
needed them to do things on paper—practice
with a pencil because finger writing with second
graders does not always turn out so well. So that
was helpful. ”
– Rural Teacher
“
I would do little scavenger hunts and say oh,
you have 15 seconds to go and find something
that is rough or bumpy.”
– Rural Teacher
“
So I had a first grader. She was virtual the
entire year and the things that worked well for
us was I was able to be right there…[S]he had
a one-on-one person any time she had any type
of question, something wasn’t working whether
it was a tech issue or whether it was a question
with the work that she was actually doing. And
we were able to immediately address it…So that
worked well.”
– Suburban Parent
Source: Discussion groups with teachers and parents of
students in public K-12 schools. | GAO-22-105815
Note: The selected comments reflect themes
discussed by teachers and parents in GAO discussion
groups and are not generalizable.
Strategies to Address Learning Loss
for K-2 Students
We estimate K-2 teachers found a higher number of strategies
that helped at least half of their students make academic
progress than did teachers who taught grades 3-8 and 9-12.15
Specifically, we estimate that a majority of K-2 teachers
saw academic progress improve for at least half of their
students when they used strategies aimed at providing more
individualized attention, such as one-on-one check-ins and
individual or small group tutoring (see figure below). These
teachers also reported that at least half of their students were
helped by physical instructional materials and movement
breaks, which is consistent with the youngest students needing
a more hands-on experience to facilitate their learning and
keep them focused.
Strategies That K-2 Teachers Reported Improved
Academic Progress for at Least Half of Their Students
Public K-2 Teachers, 2020-21 School Year
Small group work in person
Use of paper packets, manipulatives, or
other physical instructional materials
One-on-one check-ins between teacher
and student
Use of individual or small group tutoring
sessions during the school day
Movement breaks
Strategies: K-2 teachers
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
Note: A majority of teachers surveyed reported that the strategies listed helped
at least half of their students. This is the teacher’s perception of what was
helpful to students. These results were statistically significant at the 95 percent
confidence level. The margin of error for all percentages was less than or
equal to 8 percent.
15 These data are based on teachers’ perceptions of the proportion of their
students whose academic progress was improved as a result of a particular
strategy.
Page 23
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
SECTION 3 | K-2 STUDENTS
Strategies to Address Learning Loss for K-2 Students (continued)
QUESTION BOX
Q&A
How did we use statistical
models to account for teachers’
circumstances?
We used statistical models to analyze
whether teachers reported that a
particular strategy helped at least half of
their students, holding constant teacher
circumstances, such as the percentage
of high-poverty students a teacher may
have had. Due to the sample sizes of
the subgroups, we created reliable
estimates by grouping grade-level
bands K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. We used
grade bands for our statistical models
that were different than for other
estimates in this section, in order to
increase our sample sizes and obtain
reliable estimates. We also combined
teachers in virtual and hybrid
environments into one group and
compared them to teachers in an
in-person environment. For reporting
purposes, we further collapsed older
grades into one 6-12 grade group;
results for grades 6-8 and grades 9-12
were similar.
Source: GAO analysis of survey of K-12 public
school teachers. | GAO-22-105815
We also looked at strategies that teachers with older students
(grades 3-8 and 9-12) perceived helped improve academic
progress for their students, therefore mitigating learning loss.
A majority of grades 3-8 teachers reported that at least half of
their students were helped by small group work in person.16
Most teachers for grades 9-12 did not find strategies helpful for
at least half of their students beyond those that were helpful
across all students.
Teachers who taught grades 3-8 and 9-12 also reported that the
following four strategies helped improve academic progress,
but for fewer than half of their students. These strategies were:
• increased number of teachers or staff to support student
learning,
• use of individual or small group tutoring sessions during the
school day,
• movement breaks, and
• providing a flexible school day.
When we accounted for teachers’ circumstances, we saw
similar results.
• K-5 teachers in a virtual or hybrid environment who used
movement breaks had a much greater chance of reporting
that these helped at least half of their students, compared
to grades 6-12 teachers in a virtual or hybrid environment
(56 percent chance compared to 25 percent chance,
respectively).
• K-5 teachers in a virtual or hybrid environment who used
small group work, either over devices or in person, had
a much greater chance of reporting that this helped at least
half of their students, compared to grades 6-12 teachers in
a virtual or hybrid environment.
– For small group work over devices, K-5 teachers in a
virtual or hybrid environment had a 48 percent chance
of reporting that this strategy helped compared to a 30
percent chance for grades 6-12 teachers in a virtual or
hybrid environment.
16 These results were statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
Page 24
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
– For small group work in person, K-5 teachers in a virtual or hybrid environment had a 60 percent chance
of reporting that this strategy helped compared to a 44 percent chance for grades 6-12 teachers in a
virtual or hybrid environment.
• K-5 teachers who used tutoring during the school day had a greater chance of reporting that this helped
at least half of their students compared to grades 6-12 teachers.
– K-5 teachers in a virtual or hybrid environment had a 46 percent chance of reporting that this strategy
helped (compared to a 29 percent chance for grades 6-12 teachers in a virtual or hybrid environment).
– K-5 teachers in an in-person environment had a 56 percent chance of reporting that this strategy helped
(compared to a 36 percent chance for grades 6-12 teachers in an in-person environment).
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education and appropriate congressional
committees. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at https://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 27 of this report.
Sincerely yours,
Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
SECTION 3 | K-2 STUDENTS
Strategies to Address Learning Loss for K-2 Students (continued)
Page 25
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
List of Committees
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman
The Honorable Richard Shelby
Vice Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman
The Honorable Mike Crapo
Ranking Member
Committee on Finance
United States Senate
The Honorable Patty Murray
Chair
The Honorable Richard Burr
Ranking Member
Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions
United States Senate
The Honorable Gary C. Peters
Chairman
The Honorable Rob Portman
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Chair
The Honorable Kay Granger
Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Robert C. “Bobby”
Scott
Chairman
The Honorable Virginia Foxx
Republican Leader
Committee on Education and Labor
House of Representatives
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Cathy McMorris
Rodgers
Republican Leader
Committee on Energy and
Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Chairman
The Honorable John Katko
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
Chairwoman
The Honorable James Comer
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Reform
House of Representatives
The Honorable Richard E. Neal
Chairman
The Honorable Kevin Brady
Republican Leader
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
List of Committees
Page 26
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
APPENDIX 1 I | GAO RELATED PRODUCTS
APPENDIX I: GAO Related Products
Pandemic Learning: As Students Struggled to Learn, Teachers Reported
Few Strategies as Particularly Helpful to Mitigate Learning Loss.
GAO-22-104487. Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2022.
Pandemic Learning: Technical Materials for Teacher Survey and
Discussion Groups with Public K-12 School Principals, Teachers, and
Parents. GAO-22-105817. Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2022.
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.
Related Products
Page 27
GAO-22-105815 | Pandemic Learning Loss
APPENDIX II | GAO 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.
(105815)
APPENDIX II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
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