Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Feb 2;17(2):e0261114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261114

Sharp increase in inequality in education in times of the COVID-19-pandemic

Carla Haelermans 1,2,*, Roxanne Korthals 1,3,4, Madelon Jacobs 1, Suzanne de Leeuw 1,4, Stan Vermeulen 1,4, Lynn van Vugt 1, Bas Aarts 1,4, Tijana Prokic-Breuer 1,3,4, Rolf van der Velden 1,2,4, Sanne van Wetten 1,4, Inge de Wolf 1,3,4
Editor: Jérôme Prado5
PMCID: PMC8809564  PMID: 35108273

Abstract

The COVID-19-pandemic forced many countries to close schools abruptly in the spring of 2020. These school closures and the subsequent period of distance learning has led to concerns about increasing inequality in education, as children from lower-educated and poorer families have less access to (additional) resources at home. This study analyzes differences in declines in learning gains in primary education in the Netherlands for reading, spelling and math, using rich data on standardized test scores and register data on student and parental background for almost 300,000 unique students. The results show large inequalities in the learning loss based on parental education and parental income, on top of already existing inequalities. The results call for a national focus on interventions specifically targeting vulnerable students.

Introduction

The COVID-19-pandemic of early 2020 interrupted or even completely halted the learning of children in many countries around the world. Globally, schools were closed for an average of almost 95 school days between March 2020 and February 2021 [1], which is equivalent to almost half a school year in countries where a school year is 40 weeks. In many western countries, schools continued to teach remotely. However, there were many challenges related to distance learning, such as access to digital learning devices and digital learning gaps [e.g., 24]. This prompted serious worries of social-emotional problems and learning loss. Despite the lack of adequate data in many countries, some studies appeared on the use of online learning tools by students [e.g., 5] and on the effect of distance schooling on performance and learning gains of students in primary education. Although some studies did not find significant learning losses [e.g., no effects on reading in the USA [6], no learning deficits on schools with a large share of students with advantaged backgrounds in Australia [7]], most studies report negative consequences of the school closures for children’s educational development [Belgium [2], UK [4, 8], Italy [9], Switzerland [10], Germany [11], USA [1215], Norway [16]]. For higher education, the results are less consistent: some find negative effects [17] while others indicate that distance learning might have made students more efficient [18] or see little effects [19].

There are worries that some groups of students experienced lower learning gains due to the school closures and the COVID-19-pandemic than others. Our hypothesis is that the school closures and the pandemic resulted in increased inequality in skill development for students from specific backgrounds (socio-economic status, income and migration background). There is reason to believe that inequalities have indeed increased due to the school closures. For instance, in the Netherlands especially lower-educated parents felt less capable in helping their children with their schoolwork [20, 21]. In the United Kingdom, we see that middle class parents spent more time on home schooling than parents from the working class [22, 23]. If this is the case, and these learning losses persist, they can be detrimental for development of skills in the long run, and in turn lead to an increase of the existing inequalities in opportunities in education and on the labor market [24].

Previous studies on inequalities based on socioeconomic background variables in students’ learning gains during the school closures, were hampered by data limitations. Some were limited by their data on educational performance: they used relatively small samples, focused on a specific region rather than a national representative sample, or were limited to only one grade level or subject [6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16]. Others had limited information on students’ background characteristics. They used school level indicators [2, 7, 11] or relatively uninformative categories. For example, a recent study based on Dutch data was only able to distinguish between families in which at least one parent had a lower secondary degree (92%) and families in which both parents had less than a lower secondary degree (8%) [3]. Our study improves upon these studies for several reasons: 1) as a result of the widespread use of standardized testing in the Netherlands, we have a large sample of students who were tested shortly before and after the first lockdown, 2) we have rich student background information at the individual level, including multiple student background variables that indicate whether a student is disadvantaged or not, based on meaningful and informative categories and 3) we focus on effects for separate grade levels, and three different subjects (reading, spelling and mathematics) showing large variation, instead of only looking at overall effects or one subject.

Therefore, in the study at hand, we are able to look in greater detail at background differences between students and present results showing that the learning loss due to the school closures are unequally distributed: students from disadvantaged backgrounds have suffered much more than their fellow students. To show this, we use standardized test score data from the Netherlands and link this to register data on student and parental background for primary school students.

COVID-19 educational policy changes in the Netherlands

Although compulsory education starts at age 5, Dutch children generally enter primary school at age 4. They remain in primary school up to age 12, after which they enter secondary school and are tracked according to their ability. Almost all schools in the Netherlands are public schools (99%) funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science [25].

February 27, 2020 the first COVID-19 patient was reported in the Netherlands. Primary schools closed at March 16, 2020 and reopened May 11, 2020. Vulnerable children, and children of parents with essential occupations who could not work from home, were allowed to come to school during the school closure. However, these children usually followed the same program as the children who had to stay at home and comprised only around 5% of all children in this first period of school closure. Up to June 7, 2020 children only went to school half of the time. In this way, groups were smaller and it was easier to keep distance. From June 8 onwards schools went back their usual schedule. Children and teachers were still urged to stay at home when they showed any symptoms associated with COVID-19.

The Netherlands was relatively well equipped for online education, as a total of 96% of the Dutch households have internet access at home [26]. Additionally, the Dutch government made 2.5 million euros available in March to support online learning. This money was used to buy laptops and/or to provide internet access for 7,000 students. This money was supplemented with another 3.8 million euros in May 2020. In total, over 16,000 laptops and tablets were financed in this way [27]. Nevertheless, the school closure happened relatively sudden with no time to prepare. Teachers had to improvise, students suddenly had to structure their own school day, and parents had to act as teachers for their children. Although we do not know exactly how much education children received while schools were closed, there are strong indications that children spent less time on their education than usual. Studies in Germany and Switzerland report considerable reduction in studying time during school closings [28, 29]. Moreover, a survey among Dutch parents revealed that parents, especially in disadvantaged families, did often not feel equipped to support their children during the school closing [20].

Children in countries with longer school closings and less internet access might have experienced larger learning losses and larger inequalities because they experienced prolonged periods of limited and unequal excess to education. In line with this hypothesis, a recent study in Italy [9] reports larger learning losses (0.19 SD) than previous studies in the Netherlands (0.08 SD) [3]. In Italy schools were closed for 15 weeks (one of the first and longest school closings in Europe). Moreover Italy has one of the lowest share of households with a broadband connection [30] and 12% of the students between 6 and 17 years old did not have access to a computer or digital tools at home in 2018/2019 [31]. However, contradicting the idea that longer school closings result in larger learning deficits, a study in Belgium—where schools closed for 8.5 weeks—reports a reduction in mathematics scores of 0.19 SD [2] which is similar in size to the effects found in Italy (15 weeks). Altogether, more research based on country comparisons is needed to be able to state that longer lockdowns result in larger learning deficits and an increase in educational inequalities.

Materials

In the Netherlands, students take standardized tests throughout grades 1 to grade 6 in primary education. These standardized tests come from different suppliers, with the largest supplier being CITO, with which we collaborated for this paper. Furthermore, schools use administration systems to store the information about the standardized test scores. Three administration systems exported the data on standardized test scores from school year 2013/2014 onwards as part of the Netherlands Cohort Study on Education (NCO) project, a national project initiated by the Dutch Research Council (for a description of this project, see [32]). With permission of the schools, the administration system exports the data on the standardized test scores to Statistics Netherlands, who pseudonominize the student-id and school-id. Before any data was exported, parents were informed about the project and data export by the school, and were given the opportunity (during 4 to 6 weeks) to object against export of their child(ren)’s data (by informing the school written or orally). The school registered any objections in their administration system, and data was not exported from those students whose parents objected.

The data was collected over a period of three months with two exports from the administration systems, the first export took place on the 30th of November 2020, the second on the 18th of January 2021. In this export, information is collected from school years 2013/2014 to 2019/2020 and gradually consists of more and more students in more and more grades. For more information, see Table 1. In total, 1,319 schools and unique information of 291,635 students was gathered on standardized test scores. After cleaning the data, the total sample used for analyses of this paper comes down to 201,819 students in 1,178 schools.

Table 1. Collection of data on standardized tests per school year and grade.

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
School year 2013/2014
School year 2014/2015
School year 2015/2016
School year 2016/2017
School year 2017/2018
School year 2018/2019
School year 2019/2020

National standardized test scores

From grade 1 to grade 6, students take standardized tests twice a year, a midterm test, most often administered to students in the months January and February of the school year, and an end-of-term test, mostly administered in the months June and July, right before the summer holidays. For most schools, these are digital tests. Some schools opt for the pen-and-paper version. Due to the school closure in the spring of 2020, for the school year 2019/2020 the end-of-term test could be postponed until after the summer holidays, which many schools did: about a quarter of schools decided to test their students after the summer holidays in August, September or even October. Test supplier CITO made a recalculation for the test scores in August, September and October to account for the extra time until the test, and make them comparable to the test scores of students who made the test before summer. Note that the tests written during the pandemic were exactly the same type and format as before the pandemic, and there is no within school variation between the type and format of the tests before and during the pandemic.

We use test scores in the domains reading, spelling and math. Table 2 shows the number of test records and unique students per domain. The test in math contains both abstract problems and contextual problems that describe a concrete task. The reading test assesses the student’s ability to understand written texts, including both factual and literary content. Lastly, the test in spelling asks students to write down a series of words (no verbs), demonstrating that they have learned the spelling rules. For reading, there is no mid-term test in the first grade, therefore the learning gains between the midterm test and end-of-term test cannot be calculated for grade 1.

Table 2. Number of test records per domain per grade.

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total
Reading n/a 42,120 56,746 58,872 44,081 201,819
Spelling 54,424 52,166 59,558 60,762 42,864 269,774
Math 61,144 55,801 62,578 68,709 63,207 311,439

The learning gains are defined based on the standardized test scores and are calculated by subtracting the score on the midterm test from the end-of-term test of each domain within a school year, with the condition that the student must have taken a midterm and end-of-term test within the same school year at the same school. To remove the influence of outliers, the top and bottom 1% of the absolute learning gains scores are not included in the analyses.

Student background variables

In the secured virtual environment of Statistics Netherlands, standardized test scores can be matched to background information of the students and their parents. Note that the data in the environment of Statistics Netherlands are pseudonymized such that data are fully anonymous to the researchers that use these data. The data on background information that we use are the highest education level and highest income of parents, student migration background and student gender. Parental education is defined as low when the highest obtained degree of (one) the parents is in pre-vocational secondary education (vmbo b/k), or a degree in upper secondary vocational education (mbo 1), or grades 7 to 9 in pre-vocational secondary education (vmbo gl/tl) or senior general secondary education or university preparatory education (1), middle when a degree in upper secondary vocational education level 2, 3 or 4, or when completed senior general secondary education or university preparatory education (2), and high when a degree at a university of applied sciences is attained or higher (3). This division of parental education over three categories is also being used in the Netherlands Cohort Study on Education and leads to a division in categories that is not only relevant at the content level, but also provides us with large enough groups to have statistical power. Highest parental income is defined as low when the highest income of one of the parents is below the minimum income level (1), middle when the income is higher than minimal level but below twice the minimum income level (2) and high when the income of one of the parents is higher than twice the minimum income. Students’ migration background is defined as either having a Dutch background or a western background, or a non-western background. Students with a Dutch or western background are combined into one category because the data contains only very few students with a western background, and the results of these two groups are very comparable. In terms of parental education and household income, students in our sample with a non-western migration background are more likely to come from households with relatively low educated parents (26% compared to 6% for the native Dutch and western migrant student sample) and a relatively low income (45% compared to 16%). Lastly, the gender of the student is defined as male or female.

Representativeness

The data on standardized test scores are only available for schools who gave permission to export the test scores from their administrative system to Statistics Netherlands. As a result, we do not have full population data and consequently selectivity of the sample might play a role. In the schoolyear 2019/2020, we had a total number of 6,174 primary schools in the Netherlands. The 1,178 schools in our sample therefore comprise a proportion of 19% of the total number of schools. Two main sources of selectivity into the sample can be identified. First, the schools that decided to participate in the data collection might not be random. In exchange for sharing the standardized test score, schools received a report on the performance of their school relative to other schools with a comparable student population. We can expect that active schools, which are keen to monitor their progress, are especially interested in the reports and more likely to participate in the data collection project. Second, not every student is tested. Schools tend to exclude students who are absent (e.g., due to illness) or have a very large learning loss. For these students, schools feel a test is not possible or useful. Usually, the number of students per school which are excluded from the standardized tests is relatively small. However in 2020, after the school closed for several weeks, more schools decided to skip the standardized tests for a larger share of the student population. It is reasonable to assume that students with larger learning losses are less often tested. Therefore, it is likely that our data is not representative for the whole population, and additional tests on our sample in comparison to the full population confirm this. Table 3 shows the representativeness of our sample in comparison to the full population (based on the National Cohort Study on Education; [in Dutch abbreviated as NCO] [32] on student and school background characteristics. Overall, we see that our sample is over-represented in students with a non-western migration background, and students with low parental income. Furthermore, schools in our sample tend to be larger schools located in more urbanized areas.

Table 3. Representativeness of sample compared to full population on student and school background variables.

Full population Sample
Variables Percentage Percentage
Gender
Female 49.32 49.75
Migration background
Dutch & western migration background 82.22 75.95
Non-western migration background 17.51 24.04
Missing 0.27 0.01
Parental income
Low income 21.20 24.06
Medium income 53.38 50.54
High income 24.02 24.53
Missing 1.41 0.87
Parental education
Low educated 10.06 11.50
Medium educated 29.87 29.03
High educated 47.59 48.95
Missing 12.48 10.52
School size
Less than 141 students 36.71 28.95
Between 141–220 students 30.27 31.26
More than 220 students 33.01 39.79
School level pct of low educated parents
Below 5,5% 33.12 32.22
Between 5,5% and 12% 33.47 32.78
Above 12% 33.41 35.00
Urbanisation level
Low (< 500 adresses/km2) 7.86 5.63
Limited (500–1000 adresses/km2) 21.87 14.41
Medium (1000–1500 adresses/km2 17.58 12.50
Strong (1500–2500 adresses/km2) 30.93 32.66
Very strong (> = 2500 adresses/km2) 21.77 34.81
Denomination
Public school 29.79 30.55
Schools based on philosophies 6.10 3.77
Schools based on religious beliefs 64.02 65.69
Observations
Total number of students 2,458,376 263,553
Total number of schools in 2019/2020 6174 1178

Note: N of students is based on the number of unique students in the years 2017/2018, 2018/2019 and 2019/2020.

To limit the impact of selectivity and over-representation of certain students and schools, we use inverse probability weights. In calculating the weights, we use population data on all students enrolled in Dutch primary education and calculate the probability to be in our test score dataset separately per academic year, grade, and test subject domain as a function of students’ observable characteristics. These characteristics are parental education, income, migration background, gender, percentage of students with low educated parents at the school, number of students at the school, urbanisation level (based on location of the school), province (based on location of the school) and school denomination.

Descriptive statistics

Table 4 shows the unstandardized learning growth for the three domains for the 2 years before the pandemic and the year of the pandemic separately. It also shows the learning growth split by group of parental education. Table 4 is used to calculate the normal average learning growth per week in the 20 weeks between midterm and end-of-term test, and the deviation from this in the COVID-19-year. For example, if the normal learning growth for reading is 7 (in 20 weeks time), and during the pandemic it’s only 5, the decline in learning growth in weeks is (20-((20/7)*5) = 5.7.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics unstandardized learning gains per domain.

Reading Spelling Math
Overall Learning growth 2017&2018 6.99 25.59 15.52
Learning growth 2019 5.17 22.08 13.50
Low-parental education Learning growth 2017&2018 6.05 25.44 15.56
Learning growth 2019 4.27 20.28 12.31
Middle-parental education Learning growth 2017&2018 6.53 25.97 15.75
Learning growth 2019 4.21 21.42 13.14
High-parental education Learning growth 2017&2018 7.53 25.85 15.52
Learning growth 2019 5.94 22.99 14.00

Methods

In order to estimate the effect of the COVID-19 related school closure on students’ learning gain, we compare the learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test of the COVID-19-exposed cohort (2019/2020) to the learning gain of students from the two previous cohorts using OLS regressions. To account for potential differences in observable characteristics between students of different cohorts, we add controls for student gender, student household income, migration background, and parental educational background. Further, since for some students of the 2019/2020 cohort the end-of-term test was postponed until the start of the next academic year, we add a dummy indicating whether the test was taken at the end of the 2019/2020 academic year or at the beginning of 2020/2021, resulting in the following regression equation, resembling a difference-in-differences design:

Δyij=α+Tijβ+Xijγ+εijs (1)

Where Δyij stands for the difference in achievement between the end-of-term test and the midterm for student i in grade j. Tij is an indicator for the COVID-19 exposed 2019/2020 cohort, Xij is a vector consisting of the aforementioned control variables, and εijs is the school-level clustered error term. β is our coefficient of interest, which captures the difference in average learning gain between the COVID-19 exposed 2019/2020 cohort and the average learning gain of the (pooled) preceding two cohorts (2017/2018 and 2018/2019).

Identification of the COVID-19 effect hinges on the assumption that the learning gain of the different cohorts would have followed a similar trend in the absence of the pandemic. While this assumption is fundamentally untestable, we can provide supporting evidence for it by looking at the variability of learning gains for all grades over time. If these trends are stable, we can be reasonably sure that the difference between the 2019/2020 cohort and the previous two cohorts was caused by the impact of the pandemic. The results of these analyses can be found in Figs 510.

Fig 5. Trends in learning gain over time–reading.

Fig 5

Fig 10. Learning gain: Grade 5 students of 2018/2019 compared to Grade 5 students of 2019/2020 –math.

Fig 10

In order to estimate the heterogeneous impact of the COVID-19-pandemic along student background characteristics, we add an interaction between the treatment-dummy and the student characteristic of interest to the regression. This results in the following equation:

Δyij=α+Tijβ0+TijCijβ1+Xijγ+εijs (2)

Where Cij stands for one of the aforementioned student characteristics: gender, parental education, household income, and migration background. The vector of control variables Xij still includes all other student characteristics. As a robustness check, we also present results of analyses where apart from the interaction we do not include any of the other control variables, with similar results (see Tables 510). Finally, a concern could be raised that some of the student characteristics we observe are capturing similar things. For example, parental education and household income are likely to be strongly correlated. In order to isolate the additional impact of COVID-19 along (for example) household income, we therefore run analyses where we control for the interaction between parental education and the treatment-dummy in addition to the interaction with household income. In addition to household income, we do this for student gender and migration background as well, resulting in the following equation:

Δyij=α+Tijβ0+TijCijβ1++TijEijβ2+Xijγ+εijs (3)

Table 5. The disparate impact of COVID-19 on student learning gains across students’ household income and parental education levels–entropy weights.

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.0898*** -0.179*** -0.139*** -0.202*** -0.265*** -0.220*** -0.193*** -0.145*** -0.176*** -0.175*** -0.289*** -0.313*** -0.382*** -0.386***
Household income
Medium -0.0280** -0.014 -0.010 0.018 -0.006 -0.014 -0.022 -0.018 -0.003 -0.0265** -0.0277** -0.004 -0.016 -0.017
High 0.013 0.0310** 0.0288* 0.0358* 0.002 0.019 -0.0318* -0.025 0.019 -0.022 -0.0476*** 0.003 0.013 -0.002
Missing 0.020 -0.052 0.171 -0.022 -0.081 0.034 0.111 0.228* 0.042 0.056 -0.181 -0.084 -0.083 0.068
COVID-19 year * Medium income household 0.037 0.0641*** 0.0423* 0.039 0.019 0.0485** 0.0421* 0.005 0.023 0.0528** 0.0935*** 0.0699*** 0.0567** 0.033
COVID-19 year * High income household 0.007 0.0502* 0.032 0.037 0.033 0.0919*** 0.0719** 0.0669** 0.004 0.0664** 0.124*** 0.0910*** 0.044 0.016
COVID-19 year * Household income missing -0.087 0.142 -0.213 0.258 0.293 -0.057 -0.283 -0.072 -0.182 -0.262 0.300 0.199 -0.043 -0.298
Parental education
Medium 0.004 0.0456*** 0.0358** 0.028 -0.007 -0.019 0.018 -0.019 0.0690*** 0.0334** -0.014 -0.0314* 0.001 0.004
High 0.022 0.118*** 0.109*** 0.0431** -0.0409** 0.027 0.0364** -0.015 0.115*** 0.005 -0.007 -0.005 0.006 0.016
Missing -0.0368* 0.0485** 0.029 0.0605*** -0.016 0.009 0.0481** -0.007 0.0596** 0.027 -0.022 -0.030 0.019 0.020
COVID-19 year * Parental education medium -0.040 -0.0551* -0.0555* -0.049 0.049 0.045 -0.027 0.030 -0.035 -0.032 0.047 0.0657** 0.034 0.023
COVID-19 year * Parental education high 0.009 -0.028 0.001 -0.013 0.119*** 0.0698** 0.039 0.054 0.011 0.016 0.119*** 0.106*** 0.132*** 0.046
COVID-19 year * Parental education missing 0.050 -0.044 -0.003 -0.0801* 0.0921** 0.011 0.006 0.017 0.027 0.003 0.130*** 0.134*** 0.038 0.042
Additional controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Constant 0.0523*** 0.0202 -0.0470** 0.0290 0.0895*** 0.0142 0.00339 0.0340* -0.0418 0.0521*** 0.0617*** 0.0347* 0.0385** 0.0548**
Observations 54,937 68,272 68,347 49,158 62,643 66,810 71,630 70,610 47,764 70,385 70,668 75,043 79,239 69,534
R-squared 0.002 0.013 0.007 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.008 0.003 0.012 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.017 0.030
Clusters 1038 1154 1149 1088 1148 1161 1158 1153 1076 1159 1167 1166 1171 1159

The outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for household income is “low”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Observations are weighted using entropy weights. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

Table 10. The disparate impact of COVID-19 on student learning gains across students’ household income and parental education levels–pooled over all grades.

Entropy weights Unweighted No additional controls Control for prior performance School Fixed Effects
VARIABLES Reading Spelling Math Reading Spelling Math Reading Spelling Math Reading Spelling Math Reading Spelling Math
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.158*** -0.202*** -0.315*** -0.158*** -0.202*** -0.315*** -0.122*** -0.228*** -0.294*** -0.173*** -0.199*** -0.343*** -0.153*** -0.223*** -0.324***
Household income
Medium -0.00707 -0.0126* -0.0180*** -0.00597 -0.0126* -0.0170*** -0.00454 -0.0258*** -0.0304*** -0.000723 -0.00479 -0.0111* -0.00777 -0.00637 0.0139***
High 0.0291*** -0.00500 -0.00862 0.0290*** -0.00577 -0.00790 0.0325*** -0.0189** -0.0238*** 0.0333*** 0.00392 -0.00315 0.0216** -0.00897 -0.0119*
Missing 0.0568 0.0784 -0.0423 0.0773** 0.168*** 0.0292 0.0535 0.126** -0.0622 0.0266 0.153** -0.111* 0.0452 0.124** -0.0501
COVID-19 year * Medium income household 0.0449*** 0.0266** 0.0605*** 0.0443*** 0.0270** 0.0607*** 0.0451*** 0.0272** 0.0587*** 0.0520*** 0.0201 0.0652*** 0.0411*** 0.0254** 0.0573***
COVID-19 year * High income household 0.0312** 0.0575*** 0.0637*** 0.0320** 0.0591*** 0.0638*** 0.0250 0.0610*** 0.0603*** 0.0402** 0.0553*** 0.0721*** 0.0268* 0.0540*** 0.0611***
COVID-19 year * Household income missing -0.0106 -0.0283 -0.0276 0.0398 0.00728 0.0569 0.0352 -0.0400 0.0140 0.124 -0.139 0.0941 0.0371 -0.0612 0.0404
Parental education
Medium 0.0256*** 0.00866 -0.00143 0.0280*** 0.00895 -0.000243 0.0289*** -0.00929 -0.0141* 0.0258** 0.00859 -0.00645 0.0233*** -0.000732 0.00337
High 0.0747*** 0.0217** -0.000638 0.0784*** 0.0231*** 0.00186 0.0813*** 0.00476 -0.0158* 0.0810*** 0.0374*** 0.00310 0.0601*** 0.00105 -0.00476
Missing 0.0251** 0.0194* 0.00701 0.0255** 0.0185* 0.00514 0.0305*** 0.00337 -0.0101 0.0343*** 0.0115 -0.00309 0.0231** 0.0174* 0.00382
COVID-19 year * Parental education medium -0.0446*** 0.0111 0.0318** -0.0453*** 0.0119 0.0321** -0.0484*** 0.0166 0.0335** -0.0474** 0.0110 0.0352** -0.0558*** 0.0184 0.0315**
COVID-19 year * Parental education high -0.00200 0.0592*** 0.0942*** -0.00349 0.0589*** 0.0938*** -0.01000 0.0635*** 0.0893*** -0.00436 0.0570*** 0.0982*** 0.0171 0.0629*** 0.0883***
COVID-19 year * Parental education missing -0.0204 0.0306 0.0616*** -0.0190 0.0337* 0.0662*** -0.0273 0.0393** 0.0573*** -0.0431* 0.0277 0.0582*** -0.0300 0.0340* 0.0555***
Learning gain in the prior year . . . . . . . . . 0.0412*** 0.0582*** 0.0465***
Additional controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
School Fixed Effects No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Constant 0.0152 0.0144 0.0548*** -0.00171 0.0193 0.0390*** -0.0196** 0.0698*** 0.0983*** -0.0406*** -0.0423*** 0.0113 0.0158 0.0319*** 0.0460***
Observations 240,714 319,457 364,869 242,317 321,750 367,506 240,715 319,458 364,870 154,911 225,974 274,347 240,715 319,458 364,870
R-squared 0.005 0.007 0.009 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.012 0.020 0.034 0.026
Clusters 1174 1172 1178 1174 1172 1178 1174 1172 1178 1148 1163 1174 1174 1172 1178

Note: the outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for household income is “low”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, an indicator for student grade, and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

With Eij standing for the highest level of obtained parental education. As mentioned before, in our main specification we use inverse probability weighting to obtain results representative for the whole Dutch primary school population. As a robustness check, we run the same analyses without employing weights as well as using entropy-balancing weights ensuring covariate balance between the COVID-19 exposed cohort and the control cohorts (similar to the method used by [3]), and obtain similar results (see Tables 510).

Results

In this section, we show the consequences for inequality during the COVID-19-pandemic by comparing the learning gains of students in pre-COVID-19 times (school years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019) to the learning gains since the COVID-19-pandemic (school year 2019/2020) by estimating Eqs (1) through (3). The results are presented in Figs 14. Fig 1 presents the results of Eq (1), estimating the overall impact of COVID-19 on student learning gains. Fig 2 shows the result of Eq (2), estimating the disparate impact along students’ parental education. Figs 3 and 4 shows the results from Eq (3), estimating the disparate impact along students’ household income and migration background, in addition to the differences along parental education. Tables 1115 show all the underlying regression results.

Fig 1. Standardized coefficients learning gains in COVID-19-year as compared to previous years (zero line).

Fig 1

Fig 4. Standardized coefficients of learning gains in COVID-19-year 2019/2020 of no non-western migration background (zero line) versus non-western migration background.

Fig 4

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Standardized coefficients of learning gains in COVID-19-year 2019/2020 of low-educated (zero line) versus middle- and high-educated.

Fig 3. Standardized coefficients of learning gains in COVID-19-year 2019/2020 of low-income (zero line) versus middle- and high-income.

Fig 3

Table 11. Underlying regression results main effects (Fig 1).

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.0632*** -0.163*** -0.116*** -0.200*** -0.166*** -0.129*** -0.152*** -0.0977*** -0.179*** -0.131*** -0.129*** -0.166*** -0.265*** -0.326***
Parental education
Medium -0.0160 0.0240 0.0142 0.00377 -0.00251 -0.00756 0.00368 -0.00735 0.0647*** 0.0226 0.00628 -0.00807 0.00767 0.0248
High 0.0255 0.102*** 0.105*** 0.0397** -0.0107 0.0495*** 0.0450*** 0.00602 0.129*** 0.00857 0.0354** 0.0300** 0.0427*** 0.0350**
Missing -0.0246 0.0309* 0.0286* 0.0241 0.0156 0.00977 0.0498*** -0.00576 0.0731*** 0.0200 0.0172 0.0118 0.0201 0.0297*
Parental income
Medium -0.0134 0.00740 0.00417 0.0314** 0.00505 0.000162 -0.00262 -0.0163 -0.00231 -0.00899 0.00692 0.0171 0.00263 -0.00342
High 0.0140 0.0464*** 0.0384*** 0.0448*** 0.0189 0.0504*** -0.00591 0.00149 -0.00173 0.000641 -0.00292 0.0323** 0.0218 1.62e-05
Missing 0.0561 0.0260 0.0848 0.0628 0.0549 0.0843 0.0521 0.206** 0.0205 -0.00503 -0.0191 -0.0802 -0.127 -0.0515
Gender
Girl -0.0402*** -0.0596*** 0.0248*** -0.0431*** 0.00963 0.0457*** 0.0615*** 0.0308*** 0.0329*** -0.0286*** 0.0165** 0.0401*** 0.0624*** 0.102***
Migration background -0.0156 -0.0992*** 0.0140 0.0463*** 0.0207 0.140*** 0.0682*** 0.0751*** -0.0650*** 0.0818*** 0.0578*** 0.0827*** 0.0494*** 0.0490***
Migration background
Additional controls X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Constant 0.0382** 0.0155 -0.0562*** 0.0302 0.0562*** -0.0293 -0.0173 0.0108 -0.0308 0.0331* -0.00197 -0.0172 0.00465 0.0246
Observations 54,937 68,272 68,347 49,158 62,643 66,810 71,630 70,610 47,764 70,385 70,668 75,043 79,239 69,534
R-squared 0.002 0.010 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.007 0.003 0.011 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.014 0.027
Clusters 1038 1154 1149 1088 1148 1161 1158 1153 1076 1159 1167 1166 1171 1159
VARIABLES Reading Spelling Math
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.138*** -0.145*** -0.206***
Parental education
Medium 0.00815 0.00854 0.0101
High 0.0730*** 0.0408*** 0.0308***
Missing 0.0172* 0.0272*** 0.0208**
Parental income
Medium 0.00700 -0.00485 0.00283
High 0.0378*** 0.0131* 0.0121*
Missing 0.0654 0.111** -0.0565
Gender
Girl -0.0283*** 0.0361*** 0.0384***
Migration background
Migration background -0.0164*** 0.0553*** 0.0635***
Constant -0.00110 -0.00158 0.00603
Observations 240,714 319,457 364,869
R-squared 0.005 0.007 0.009
Clusters 1174 1172 1178

The outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for gender is “boy”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, parental income and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Observations are weighted using entropy weights. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

Table 15. Underlying regression results gender.

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.0399 -0.118*** -0.104*** -0.160*** -0.275*** -0.212*** -0.186*** -0.162*** -0.190*** -0.131*** -0.263*** -0.249*** -0.336*** -0.370***
Gender
Girl -0.0278*** -0.0490*** 0.0311*** -0.0314** 0.00547 0.0370*** 0.0640*** 0.0263*** 0.0373*** -0.0139 0.0177* 0.0490*** 0.0704*** 0.102***
COVID-19 year * Girl -0.0380* -0.0326* -0.0195 -0.0349 0.0137 0.0261 -0.00852 0.0134 -0.0128 -0.0448** -0.00501 -0.0281 -0.0252 -0.00222
Parental education
Medium -0.00257 0.0411** 0.0292* 0.0147 -0.0243 -0.0228 0.00791 -0.0211 0.0770*** 0.0250 -0.0208 -0.0274 -0.00170 0.0146
High 0.0227 0.108*** 0.0984*** 0.0415** -0.0548*** 0.0171 0.0206 -0.0200 0.114*** -0.00605 -0.0236 -0.0106 -0.00181 0.0140
Missing -0.0369 0.0400** 0.0269 0.0460* -0.0178 0.00203 0.0412* -0.0183 0.0569** 0.0150 -0.0343 -0.0291 0.00425 0.0181
COVID-19 year * Medium educated parent -0.0397 -0.0535 -0.0448 -0.0337 0.0726** 0.0512 -0.00997 0.0444 -0.0355 -0.00591 0.0906*** 0.0641** 0.0324 0.0327
COVID-19 year * High educated parent 0.00746 -0.0208 0.0199 -0.00698 0.139*** 0.103*** 0.0752** 0.0810** 0.0432 0.0448 0.185*** 0.127*** 0.138*** 0.0639*
COVID-19 year * Education parent missing 0.0424 -0.0291 0.00597 -0.0697 0.108** 0.0225 0.0272 0.0389 0.0512 0.0154 0.167*** 0.133*** 0.0484 0.0356
Additional controls X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Constant 0.0302 0.00121 -0.0600*** 0.0174 0.0901*** -0.00313 -0.00699 0.0313 -0.0272 0.0327* 0.0402** 0.00840 0.0273 0.0387**
Observations 54,937 68,272 68,347 49,158 62,643 66,810 71,630 70,610 47,764 70,385 70,668 75,043 79,239 69,534
R-squared 0.002 0.010 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.008 0.003 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.015 0.027
Clusters 1038 1154 1149 1088 1148 1161 1158 1153 1076 1159 1167 1166 1171 1159
VARIABLES Reading Spelling Math
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.111*** -0.205*** -0.273***
Gender
Girl -0.0185*** 0.0335*** 0.0472***
COVID-19 year * Girl -0.0299*** 0.00771 -0.0272***
Parental education
Medium 0.0218** 0.000886 -0.00385
High 0.0716*** 0.0128 -0.00713
Missing 0.0215** 0.0121 -0.00252
COVID-19 year * Medium educated parent -0.0413** 0.0267 0.0468***
COVID-19 year * High educated parent 0.00369 0.0872*** 0.118***
COVID-19 year * Education parent missing -0.0133 0.0478** 0.0741***
Additional controls X X X
Constant -0.00972 0.0173 0.0269**
Observations 240,714 319,457 364,869
R-squared 0.005 0.007 0.009
Clusters 1174 1172 1178

Note: the outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for gender is “boy”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, parental income and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Observations are weighted using entropy weights. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

Table 12. Underlying regression results parental education (Fig 2).

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.0583 -0.135*** -0.114*** -0.178*** -0.268*** -0.199*** -0.191*** -0.155*** -0.196*** -0.153*** -0.266*** -0.263*** -0.349*** -0.371***
Parental education
Medium -0.00281 0.0410** 0.0291* 0.0147 -0.0244 -0.0226 0.00785 -0.0211 0.0770*** 0.0251 -0.0208 -0.0275 -0.00181 0.0146
High 0.0224 0.108*** 0.0982*** 0.0413** -0.0548*** 0.0173 0.0205 -0.0199 0.114*** -0.00595 -0.0236 -0.0108 -0.00206 0.0140
Missing -0.0373 0.0396* 0.0267 0.0458* -0.0178 0.00225 0.0411* -0.0182 0.0568** 0.0151 -0.0343 -0.0294 0.00399 0.0181
COVID-19 year * Medium educated parent -0.0401 -0.0529 -0.0446 -0.0333 0.0725** 0.0513 -0.00978 0.0443 -0.0354 -0.00573 0.0906*** 0.0645** 0.0329 0.0327
COVID-19 year * High educated parent 0.00703 -0.0200 0.0205 -0.00591 0.139*** 0.103*** 0.0754** 0.0806** 0.0436 0.0451 0.185*** 0.128*** 0.138*** 0.0640*
COVID-19 year * Education parent missing 0.0422 -0.0283 0.00670 -0.0689 0.108** 0.0226 0.0274 0.0385 0.0517 0.0154 0.167*** 0.134*** 0.0494 0.0357
Parental income
Medium -0.0130 0.00730 0.00386 0.0309** 0.00463 -0.000659 -0.00272 -0.0169 -0.00250 -0.00923 0.00641 0.0173 0.00153 -0.00367
High 0.0148 0.0463*** 0.0382*** 0.0447*** 0.0193 0.0502*** -0.00542 0.00136 -0.00129 0.000943 -0.00218 0.0331** 0.0215 0.000132
Missing
0.0553 0.0274 0.0840 0.0605 0.0560 0.0882 0.0548 0.206** 0.0220 -0.00480 -0.0159 -0.0815 -0.128 -0.0517
Additional controls x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Constant 0.0368* 0.00677 -0.0567*** 0.0234 0.0879*** -0.00757 -0.00552 0.0291 -0.0250 0.0398** 0.0411** 0.0131 0.0316* 0.0391**
Observations 54,937 68,272 68,347 49,158 62,643 66,810 71,630 70,610 47,764 70,385 70,668 75,043 79,239 69,534
R-squared 0.002 0.010 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.008 0.003 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.015 0.027
Clusters 1038 1154 1149 1088 1148 1161 1158 1153 1076 1159 1167 1166 1171 1159
VARIABLES Reading Spelling Math
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.127*** -0.201*** -0.287***
Parental education
Medium 0.0217** 0.000913 -0.00391
High 0.0713*** 0.0129 -0.00727
Missing 0.0212* 0.0122 -0.00268
COVID-19 year * Medium educated parent -0.0409** 0.0266 0.0470***
COVID-19 year * High educated parent 0.00430 0.0870*** 0.119***
COVID-19 year * Education parent missing -0.0126 0.0476** 0.0746***
Parental income
Medium 0.00684 -0.00520 0.00235
High 0.0379*** 0.0133* 0.0123*
Missing 0.0658 0.112** -0.0558
Additional controls X X X
Constant -0.00451 0.0160 0.0314***
Observations 240,714 319,457 364,869
R-squared 0.005 0.007 0.009
Clusters 1174 1172 1178

The outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for household income is “low”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Observations are weighted using entropy weights. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

Table 13. Underlying regression results household income (Fig 3).

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.0710* -0.163*** -0.127*** -0.207*** -0.279*** -0.225*** -0.210*** -0.155*** -0.200*** -0.168*** -0.309*** -0.298*** -0.372*** -0.388***
Parental income
Medium -0.000276 0.0458*** 0.0315* 0.0200 -0.0227 -0.0174 0.0118 -0.0206 0.0775*** 0.0291* -0.0126 -0.0214 0.00193 0.0175
High 0.0235 0.116*** 0.102*** 0.0532** -0.0514*** 0.0314 0.0311* -0.0141 0.113*** 0.00332 -0.00498 0.00297 0.00420 0.0174
Missing -0.0348 0.0463** 0.0297 0.0546** -0.0150 0.0106 0.0471** -0.0165 0.0567** 0.0197 -0.0217 -0.0198 0.00942 0.0214
COVID-19 year * Medium income 0.0356 0.0637*** 0.0306 0.0595* 0.0224 0.0585** 0.0403 -0.00504 0.0101 0.0396 0.0980*** 0.0752*** 0.0507** 0.0397
COVID-19 year * High household income -0.00810 0.0447 0.0213 0.0836** 0.0237 0.105*** 0.0756** 0.0516* -0.0138 0.0622** 0.129*** 0.0958*** 0.0397 0.0174
COVID-19 year * Household income missing 0.0142 0.103 -0.194 0.292 0.283 -0.0361 -0.304 -0.0853 -0.168 -0.242 0.244 0.211 0.0658 -0.296
Parental education
Medium -0.000276 0.0458*** 0.0315* 0.0200 -0.0227 -0.0174 0.0118 -0.0206 0.0775*** 0.0291* -0.0126 -0.0214 0.00193 0.0175
High 0.0235 0.116*** 0.102*** 0.0532** -0.0514*** 0.0314 0.0311* -0.0141 0.113*** 0.00332 -0.00498 0.00297 0.00420 0.0174
Missing -0.0348 0.0463** 0.0297 0.0546** -0.0150 0.0106 0.0471** -0.0165 0.0567** 0.0197 -0.0217 -0.0198 0.00942 0.0214
COVID-19 year * Medium educated parent 0.0356 0.0637*** 0.0306 0.0595* 0.0224 0.0585** 0.0403 -0.00504 0.0101 0.0396 0.0980*** 0.0752*** 0.0507** 0.0397
COVID-19 year * High educated parent -0.00810 0.0447 0.0213 0.0836** 0.0237 0.105*** 0.0756** 0.0516* -0.0138 0.0622** 0.129*** 0.0958*** 0.0397 0.0174
COVID-19 year * Education parent missing 0.0142 0.103 -0.194 0.292 0.283 -0.0361 -0.304 -0.0853 -0.168 -0.242 0.244 0.211 0.0658 -0.296
Additional controls X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Constant 0.0412** 0.0160 -0.0524*** 0.0334 0.0915*** 0.00150 0.000365 0.0290 -0.0239 0.0449** 0.0559*** 0.0247 0.0393** 0.0449**
 
Observations 54,937 68,272 68,347 49,158 62,643 66,810 71,630 70,610 47,764 70,385 70,668 75,043 79,239 69,534
R-squared 0.002 0.010 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.008 0.004 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.015 0.027
Clusters 1038 1154 1149 1088 1148 1161 1158 1153 1076 1159 1167 1166 1171 1159
VARIABLES Reading Spelling Math
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.146*** -0.214*** -0.313***
Parental income
Medium -0.00825 -0.0141** -0.0174***
High 0.0280*** -0.00545 -0.00898
Missing 0.0540 0.126** -0.0620
COVID-19 year * Medium household income 0.0450*** 0.0269** 0.0593***
COVID-19 year * High household income 0.0292* 0.0578*** 0.0647***
COVID-19 year * Missing household income 0.0346 -0.0420 0.0170
Parental education
Medium 0.0251*** 0.00352 0.000974
High 0.0765*** 0.0206** 0.00255
Missing 0.0259** 0.0165 0.00442
COVID-19 year * Medium educated parent -0.0511*** 0.0185 0.0320**
COVID-19 year * High educated parent -0.0114 0.0637*** 0.0885***
COVID-19 year * Education parent missing -0.0253 0.0355* 0.0552***
Additional controls X X X
Constant 0.00198 0.0203* 0.0403***
Observations 240,714 319,457 364,869
R-squared 0.005 0.007 0.009
Clusters 1174 1172 1178

The outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-termtest, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for household income is “low”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Observations are weighted using entropy weights. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

Fig 1 shows that in all domains, students have a lower learning gains during the COVID-19-pandemic compared to the growth of students in previous cohorts. On average there is 0.14 standard deviations (SD) learning loss in reading, 0.15 SD in spelling and 0.21 SD in math. Looking at the different grades, we see a gradual increase in the learning loss from grade 1 to grade 5 onwards across all domains, with some outliers, like for instance spelling in grade 4. For reading, we see students experience about 0.06 to 0.20 SD learning loss compared to students from previous cohorts. Looking at spelling shows a similar result, where students experience about 0.13 to 0.18 SD learning loss. Math shows the largest deficits in learning with on average 0.13 (grade 1) to 0.33 (grade 5) SD learning loss.

Although most students learned less in 2019/2020 than their peers in previous cohorts, some students show larger learning loss than others, leading to (increasing) inequality between students. We look at four dimensions of inequality: (1) by parental education, (2) by family income, (3) by migration background and (4) by gender.

Fig 2 shows that children with low-educated parents learned less between the midterm and end-of-year test than their peers with high-educated parents, and that the differences are largest in grades 1, 2 and 3, and for spelling and math(note that alternative specifications in which we use four categories of parental education, or in which we use three categories which are not based on parental education, but on the indication (used for funding purposes) whether a child is a regular child, has a disadvantaged background or a very disadvantaged background, yield very similar results and the same conclusions.) The results show, for example, that children of high-educated parents experience about 0.1 SD more learning gains during the year 2019/2020 compared to children of low-educated parents. In other words, the learning loss due to school closings is larger for students of low-educated parents, and inequalities have grown because of this. The differences between students of high- and low-educated parents are statistically significant for spelling and math but not for reading, implying that the role of parental background on educational development during the first school closure due to the COVID-19-pandemic is largest for math and spelling, and less pronounced for reading comprehension. Altogether, these findings show that the existing differences in learning gains based on parental education prior to the COVID-19-pandemic have increased during the spring of 2020 when learning was disrupted. These increased differences based on parental education are not surprising, since students were more dependent on the help their parents could provide with schoolwork during the school closure. This finding is also confirmed by other studies: parents in the Netherlands with lower educational attainment felt less capable to help their children with schoolwork [20, 21].

Parental income also plays a role: Fig 3 shows that children from medium and higher income households increase their scores between the midterm and end-of-year test more strongly in the COVID-19-year than their peers from a family with a lower household income, with the largest effects in grades 2 and 3, and for spelling and math. For example, children from medium and high household income experience about 0.05 SD more learning gains than children in low-income households. Note that the relation between income and learning gains is additive to the additional role of parental education during the pandemic. We explicitly take into account the effect of parental education on learning gains and the additional role during the pandemic, and we still see an effect of household income during the school closure. However, it is not surprising that we find an effect of parental income on top of the effect of parental education: parents with higher household income were more likely to afford additional help for their children during their time at home. One study suggested that they provide more private access to additional online learning materials [33].

We also looked at the role of migration background, again on top of effects of parental education. The results in Fig 4 indicate that, conditional on the effect of parental education, overall, students with a non-western migration background did not perform significantly worse than other students (native and with a western migration background) during the COVID-19-pandemic. We only find a small significant result for math for grade 2 and 3, and for all grades taken together. Note that, if we do not condition on effects of parental education, we do find significant differences for migration background. Hence, overall, we find that the increased inequality during the pandemic is based on parental education and parental income rather than on migration background.

Lastly, we find that there are no significant differences for gender, neither with nor without controlling for the effect of parental education. Girls seem to perform slightly worse on reading and math but the coefficients are small and almost only statistically significant when all grade levels are taken together (see Table 14).

Table 14. Underlying regression results migration background (Fig 4).

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.0300 -0.114*** -0.101*** -0.172*** -0.253*** -0.199*** -0.185*** -0.157*** -0.179*** -0.141*** -0.239*** -0.230*** -0.341*** -0.360***
Migration background 0.00233 -0.0855*** 0.0233* 0.0509*** 0.0311** 0.141*** 0.0717*** 0.0735*** -0.0535** 0.0899*** 0.0758*** 0.105*** 0.0554*** 0.0566***
COVID-19 year * Migration background -0.0566* -0.0425* -0.0285 -0.0128 -0.0322 -0.000294 -0.0108 0.00477 -0.0364 -0.0248 -0.0559** -0.0688*** -0.0177 -0.0235
Parental education
Medium 0.00253 0.0446*** 0.0317* 0.0159 -0.0213 -0.0226 0.00879 -0.0215 0.0804*** 0.0274* -0.0156 -0.0216 -0.000165 0.0168
High 0.0296 0.113*** 0.102*** 0.0429** -0.0508*** 0.0173 0.0218 -0.0205 0.119*** -0.00287 -0.0166 -0.00249 0.000222 0.0170
Missing -0.0318 0.0436** 0.0297 0.0472** -0.0153 0.00228 0.0421** -0.0187 0.0610** 0.0170 -0.0292 -0.0231 0.00589 0.0208
COVID-19 year * Medium educated parent -0.0573 -0.0650* -0.0520* -0.0368 0.0629* 0.0512 -0.0129 0.0455 -0.0457 -0.0130 0.0743** 0.0445 0.0281 0.0261
COVID-19 year * High educated parent -0.0154 -0.0364 0.00998 -0.0107 0.127*** 0.103*** 0.0712** 0.0824** 0.0294 0.0357 0.164*** 0.101*** 0.132*** 0.0552
COVID-19 year * Education parent missing 0.0287 -0.0394 -0.000753 -0.0727 0.103** 0.0226 0.0245 0.0398 0.0400 0.0110 0.154*** 0.116*** 0.0445 0.0286
Additional controls X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Constant 0.0280 0.000330 -0.0612*** 0.0214 0.0829*** -0.00762 -0.00717 0.0298 -0.0308 0.0360* 0.0323* 0.00275 0.0288 0.0353*
Observations 54,937 68,272 68,347 49,158 62,643 66,810 71,630 70,610 47,764 70,385 70,668 75,043 79,239 69,534
R-squared 0.002 0.010 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.008 0.003 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.015 0.027
Clusters 1038 1154 1149 1088 1148 1161 1158 1153 1076 1159 1167 1166 1171 1159
VARIABLES Reading Spelling Math
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.111*** -0.193*** -0.268***
Migration background
Migration background -0.00588 0.0607*** 0.0762***
COVID-19 year * Migration background -0.0320** -0.0162 -0.0387***
Parental education
Medium 0.0246*** 0.00240 -0.000317
High 0.0753*** 0.0149 -0.00239
Missing 0.0244** 0.0137 0.00115
COVID-19 year * Medium educated parent -0.0498*** 0.0220 0.0359**
COVID-19 year * High educated parent -0.00783 0.0808*** 0.104***
COVID-19 year * Education parent missing -0.0212 0.0435** 0.0647***
Additional controls X X X
Constant -0.00949 0.0135 0.0254**
Observations 240,714 319,457 364,869
R-squared 0.005 0.007 0.009
Clusters 1174 1172 1178

Note: the outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for migration background is “no migration background”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, parental income and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Observations are weighted using entropy weights. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

Robustness checks

Our preferred model, used throughout the main text, includes inverse probability weights to obtain results that are representative for the entire Dutch primary school population, and we compare the learning gains between the midterm and the end-of-term test in the COVID-19-year to the gains in the two years prior. Furthermore, in the analyses mapping the disparate impact of COVID-19 along several student characteristics we control for all other background characteristics. These choices could potentially influence our results and their interpretation. Therefore, in this section we show the results of additional analyses where we change the specification of our main model.

To demonstrate how the choice of including inverse probability weights influences the results, Tables 5 and 6 show the results when using entropy-balancing weights and unweighted regressions, respectively. While there are some slight differences in terms of significance levels of certain coefficients, the overall pattern of lower learning gains during the COVID-19-year for students from low-income households and low educated parents, especially in spelling and math, remains similar in magnitude.

Table 6. The disparate impact of COVID-19 on student learning gains across students’ household income and parental education levels–unweighted.

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.0931*** -0.180*** -0.137*** -0.205*** -0.266*** -0.211*** -0.194*** -0.146*** -0.181*** -0.179*** -0.285*** -0.313*** -0.383*** -0.378***
Household income
Medium -0.0233* -0.0105 -0.00709 0.0186 -0.00348 -0.0156 -0.0212 -0.0161 0.00460 -0.0262** -0.0247** -0.00393 -0.0162 -0.0144
High 0.0181 0.0326** 0.0291* 0.0327* 0.00653 0.0176 -0.0323** -0.0214 0.0145 -0.0214 -0.0427*** 0.00333 0.0120 -0.00313
Missing 0.0498 0.0456 0.111* 0.117 0.0560 0.207*** 0.0962 0.284*** 0.213** -0.0534 0.0372 0.0135 0.0834 0.0846
COVID-19 year * Medium income household 0.0352 0.0632*** 0.0403* 0.0397 0.0185 0.0478** 0.0419* 0.00458 0.0168 0.0541** 0.0934*** 0.0727*** 0.0570** 0.0312
COVID-19 year * High income household 0.00549 0.0516* 0.0330 0.0430 0.0306 0.0911*** 0.0724** 0.0647** 0.00992 0.0681** 0.122*** 0.0940*** 0.0441 0.0186
COVID-19 year * Household income missing -0.0243 0.0611 -0.0627 0.197* 0.00978 0.0350 0.159 -0.0180 -0.190 0.167* -0.0218 0.0881 0.0165 -0.0434
Parental education
Medium 0.00413 0.0461*** 0.0362** 0.0209 -0.00865 -0.0180 0.0156 -0.0160 0.0832*** 0.0293* -0.0106 -0.0249 0.00206 0.00977
High 0.0235 0.118*** 0.110*** 0.0467** -0.0426** 0.0315* 0.0329* -0.0142 0.127*** 0.00240 -0.00397 -0.00166 0.00610 0.0153
Missing -0.0303 0.0483** 0.0301 0.0459** -0.0150 0.0127 0.0450** -0.0115 0.0680*** 0.0233 -0.0180 -0.0241 0.0169 0.0181
COVID-19 year * Parental education medium -0.0321 -0.0530* -0.0560* -0.0416 0.0524 0.0440 -0.0248 0.0286 -0.0484 -0.0279 0.0428 0.0626** 0.0339 0.0162
COVID-19 year * Parental education high 0.0148 -0.0253 0.00250 -0.0153 0.122*** 0.0660* 0.0421 0.0548 -0.000224 0.0192 0.117*** 0.106*** 0.133*** 0.0470
COVID-19 year * Parental education missing 0.0536 -0.0418 -0.00150 -0.0660 0.0919** 0.00363 0.0141 0.0256 0.0190 0.00916 0.118*** 0.133*** 0.0498 0.0501
Additional controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Constant 0.0398** 0.0108 -0.0539*** 0.0244 0.0866*** 0.00969 0.00400 0.0325* -0.0412* 0.0488*** 0.0524*** 0.0256 0.0365** 0.0430**
Observations 55,303 68,721 68,802 49,491 63,148 67,295 72,125 71,089 48,093 70,969 71,188 75,577 79,786 69,986
R-squared 0.002 0.011 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.007 0.004 0.012 0.005 0.004 0.007 0.014 0.022
Clusters 1038 1154 1149 1089 1148 1161 1158 1153 1079 1159 1167 1166 1171 1159

The outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for household income is “low”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

In Table 7 we run our main specification without controlling for student gender and migration background, and the dummy accounting for whether the end-of-term test was taken at the end of the school year of 2019/2020 or at the beginning of the 2020/2021 school year. It could be that the interaction effects found on student household income and parental educational background only hold conditional on these other student characteristics. If so, this complicates the interpretation of our results. Fortunately, the exclusion of these additional control variables does not change the found associations.

Table 7. The disparate impact of COVID-19 on student learning gains across students’ household income and parental education levels–no additional controls.

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.0574 -0.135*** -0.0983*** -0.214*** -0.319*** -0.259*** -0.211*** -0.153*** -0.210*** -0.167*** -0.304*** -0.273*** -0.338*** -0.386***
Household income
Medium -0.0211 0.00699 -0.00942 0.00298 -0.00724 -0.0488*** -0.0305** -0.0300** 0.00617 -0.0394*** -0.0381*** -0.0247** -0.0258** -0.0282**
High 0.0209 0.0552*** 0.0273* 0.00770 0.00661 -0.0165 -0.0461*** -0.0328* 0.0175 -0.0384** -0.0579*** -0.0174 -0.00379 -0.0196
Missing 0.0503 -0.0110 0.150 -0.0201 -0.0361 0.0921 0.167 0.237* 0.0643 0.0663 -0.102 -0.157 -0.152 0.0412
COVID-19 year * Medium income household 0.0365 0.0638*** 0.0308 0.0599* 0.0230 0.0583** 0.0402 -0.00621 0.0134 0.0395 0.0974*** 0.0738*** 0.0515** 0.0411
COVID-19 year * High income household -0.0106 0.0421 0.0171 0.0857** 0.0313 0.114*** 0.0753** 0.0507* -0.00855 0.0616** 0.128*** 0.0910*** 0.0337 0.0194
COVID-19 year * Household income missing 0.0252 0.135 -0.205 0.277 0.300 -0.0460 -0.311 -0.0846 -0.145 -0.227 0.238 0.210 0.0673 -0.278
Parental education
Medium 0.00397 0.0672*** 0.0281* 0.00920 -0.0275 -0.0510*** -0.00370 -0.0382** 0.0926*** 0.00955 -0.0261 -0.0394** -0.0103 0.00714
High 0.0287 0.143*** 0.0974*** 0.0403* -0.0569*** -0.00829 0.0112 -0.0365* 0.131*** -0.0187 -0.0206 -0.0195 -0.0117 0.00263
Missing -0.0305 0.0684*** 0.0255 0.0426* -0.0184 -0.0193 0.0307 -0.0362 0.0741*** 0.00600 -0.0336 -0.0377* -0.00488 0.00760
COVID-19 year * Parental education medium -0.0477 -0.0599* -0.0496 -0.0473 0.0640* 0.0310 -0.0244 0.0446 -0.0363 -0.0177 0.0649* 0.0434 0.0237 0.0198
COVID-19 year * Parental education high 0.00326 -0.0405 0.0109 -0.0379 0.130*** 0.0599* 0.0431 0.0651* 0.0502 0.0173 0.128*** 0.0841** 0.120*** 0.0508
COVID-19 year * Parental education missing 0.0323 -0.0495 -0.000200 -0.0896* 0.105** 0.0121 0.0142 0.0386 0.0520 0.00873 0.137*** 0.108*** 0.0368 0.0253
Additional controls No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
Constant 0.0111 -0.0707*** -0.0313* 0.0372* 0.108*** 0.105*** 0.0709*** 0.0884*** -0.0445* 0.0775*** 0.0968*** 0.0912*** 0.100*** 0.125***
Observations 54,937 68,272 68,347 49,159 62,643 66,810 71,630 70,610 47,765 70,385 70,668 75,043 79,239 69,535
R-squared 0.001 0.008 0.004 0.010 0.010 0.007 0.006 0.003 0.010 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.013 0.024
Clusters 1038 1154 1149 1088 1148 1161 1158 1153 1076 1159 1167 1166 1171 1159

The outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for household income is “low”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Observations are weighted using inverse probability weights. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

Table 8 shows how the results change when we control for students’ learning gains that they obtained in the previous year. Including prior performance helps in addressing potential differences between cohorts in the trend of their cognitive development. However, the downside of this specification is that we do not observe prior performance for students that are in the first grade (or second grade for the reading domain), and they drop from the analyses as a result. For the other grades, the results are similar to the main specification. Prior learning gains are significantly positively related to later learning gains for all but one subgroup (grade 5 spelling), but its inclusion does not alter the size and significance of the main results.

Table 8. The disparate impact of COVID-19 on student learning gains across students’ household income and parental education levels–additional control for prior performance.

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.167*** -0.136*** -0.225*** -0.225*** -0.226*** -0.153*** -0.164*** -0.302*** -0.298*** -0.358*** -0.401***
Household income
Medium -0.00851 -0.00532 0.00698 -0.00249 -0.0149 -0.00630 0.0185 -0.0219* -0.00227 -0.00700 -0.0152
High 0.0410** 0.0287* 0.0173 0.0292 -0.0232 -0.00466 0.0329 -0.0383** 0.00723 0.0136 -0.00481
Missing -0.0720 0.186* -0.0851 0.0679 0.121 0.256** 0.140 -0.0993 -0.240** -0.233* 0.111
COVID-19 year * Medium income household 0.0726*** 0.0322 0.0720** 0.0311 0.0567** -0.0102 -0.00369 0.0952*** 0.0759*** 0.0374 0.0523*
COVID-19 year * High income household 0.0258 0.0275 0.0951** 0.0904*** 0.0873*** 0.0455 -0.0447 0.134*** 0.101*** 0.0313 0.0372
COVID-19 year * Household income missing 0.150 -0.0723 0.319 -0.108 -0.347 -0.116 -0.161 0.0673 0.339 0.242 -0.307
Parental education
Medium 0.0372** 0.0356* 0.00441 -0.0251 0.0109 -0.0252 0.104*** -0.0108 -0.0303* 0.00739 0.0121
High 0.107*** 0.0976*** 0.0267 0.0204 0.0322* -0.0173 0.146*** -0.00229 -0.00404 0.00797 0.0155
Missing 0.0525** 0.0325 0.0177 -0.0149 0.0393* -0.0388 0.0778*** -0.0138 -0.0339 0.00453 0.0182
COVID-19 year * Parental education medium -0.0633* -0.0498 -0.0296 0.0414 -0.0255 0.0416 -0.0341 0.0539 0.0438 0.0161 0.0257
COVID-19 year * Parental education high -0.0214 0.0181 -0.0264 0.0720* 0.0403 0.0711** 0.0425 0.118*** 0.0861** 0.118*** 0.0479
COVID-19 year * Parental education missing -0.0914** 0.00214 -0.0711 0.0161 0.000974 0.0456 0.0415 0.116*** 0.101** 0.0308 0.0184
Learning gain in the prior year 0.0610*** 0.0474*** 0.0101 0.0926*** 0.0584*** 0.0589*** 0.0124 0.105*** 0.0368*** 0.0386*** 0.00947
Additional controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Constant -0.0326 -0.0807*** 0.0470* -0.0549** -0.0355* -0.00157 -0.0891*** -0.00413 0.00839 0.0113 0.0406**
Observations 53,421 59,728 41,762 56,806 63,006 63,631 42,531 65,911 69,730 73,756 64,950
R-squared 0.012 0.006 0.011 0.014 0.010 0.004 0.012 0.008 0.007 0.015 0.028
Clusters 1072 1112 1020 1151 1147 1135 1033 1161 1159 1166 1151

The outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for household income is “low”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Observations are weighted using inverse probability weights. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

Table 9 adds school fixed effects to the regression. With this we control for the possibility that time-invariant factors at the school level are driving our results. This could be the case, for example, when students are strongly sorted into schools according to their background characteristics. In this case the association between student characteristics and learning gains could be driven by (unobserved) differences between schools that house different kinds of student populations. The results from Table 9 however show that including school fixed effects does not change the patterns of the found associations.

Table 9. The disparate impact of COVID-19 on student learning gains across students’ household income and parental education levels–school fixed effects.

Reading Spelling Math
VARIABLES Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
COVID-19 year (2019/2020) -0.0798** -0.166*** -0.145*** -0.230*** -0.283*** -0.249*** -0.217*** -0.156*** -0.239*** -0.195*** -0.313*** -0.305*** -0.367*** -0.406***
Household income
Medium -0.0245* -0.0172 -0.00646 0.0200 -0.00534 -0.0160 -0.0121 0.00489 0.00645 -0.0170 -0.0246** -0.00461 -0.0113 -0.00903
High 0.0138 0.0194 0.0212 0.0295 0.00519 -0.00835 -0.0306* -0.0108 0.0199 -0.0282* -0.0361** 0.000759 0.00281 -0.00830
Missing 0.0428 0.0197 0.132 -0.0845 -0.0153 0.0604 0.135 0.218* 0.0805 0.0883 -0.0231 -0.202* -0.123 -0.0421
COVID-19 year * Medium income household 0.0312 0.0569** 0.0296 0.0463 0.0179 0.0684*** 0.0452* -0.0153 0.0274 0.0351 0.0973*** 0.0670*** 0.0519** 0.0445*
COVID-19 year * High income household -0.00824 0.0410 0.0129 0.0802** 0.0129 0.119*** 0.0738** 0.0343 -0.0111 0.0598** 0.130*** 0.0921*** 0.0445 0.0173
COVID-19 year * Household income missing 0.0564 0.115 -0.178 0.309 0.238 -0.0885 -0.260 -0.170 -0.225 -0.178 0.256 0.354* 0.0647 -0.247
Parental education
Medium -0.00356 0.0374** 0.0298* 0.0238 -0.0287 -0.0135 0.00889 -0.0256 0.0606*** 0.0267 -0.00748 -0.0164 0.00792 0.0195
High 0.0116 0.0847*** 0.0817*** 0.0531** -0.0814*** 0.0133 0.0332* -0.0408** 0.0888*** -0.00754 0.000545 -0.00401 -0.000905 0.00222
Missing -0.0350 0.0316 0.0298 0.0585** -0.0271 0.0251 0.0497** -0.00579 0.0378 0.0152 -0.0187 -0.0116 0.0134 0.0198
COVID-19 year * Parental education medium -0.0455 -0.0716** -0.0514 -0.0392 0.0624* 0.0264 -0.0182 0.0408 -0.0379 -0.00794 0.0603* 0.0414 0.00609 0.0219
COVID-19 year * Parental education high 0.00297 -0.0584* 0.00742 -0.0263 0.139*** 0.0459 0.0390 0.0618* 0.0315 0.0212 0.128*** 0.0786** 0.103*** 0.0514
COVID-19 year * Parental education missing 0.0252 -0.0515 -0.000714 -0.0824* 0.103** 0.000242 0.00561 0.0325 0.0483 0.00728 0.131*** 0.101** 0.0160 0.0306
Additional controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
School Fixed Effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Constant 0.0517*** 0.0392** -0.0374** 0.0310 0.113*** 0.0252 0.00265 0.0383** -0.00487 0.0621*** 0.0489*** 0.0285* 0.0422** 0.0531***
Observations 54,937 68,272 68,347 49,158 62,643 66,810 71,630 70,610 47,764 70,385 70,668 75,043 79,239 69,534
R-squared 0.038 0.052 0.044 0.061 0.074 0.106 0.065 0.101 0.106 0.060 0.060 0.055 0.061 0.099
Clusters 1038 1154 1149 1088 1148 1161 1158 1153 1076 1159 1167 1166 1171 1159

The outcome variable, learning gain between the midterm and the end-of-term test, has been standardized within grade using the inverse probability population weighted means and standard deviations. The baseline category for “COVID-19 year” are the pooled students from the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 school years. The baseline category for household income is “low”. The baseline category for parental education is “low”. Additional controls include student gender, students’ migration background, and a dummy indicating whether students took their end-of-term test at the start of the next, rather than at the end of the current school year. Observations are weighted using inverse probability weights. Standard errors are clustered at the school level and are omitted for brevity.

* p<0.10; **<0.05; *** p<0.01.

Finally, Table 10 shows the results of our main specification as well as the previously discussed robustness checks for the pooled sample over all grades. This table further demonstrates that while there are some slight differences in terms of significance between specifications when looking at grades separately, the overall picture of the disparate impact of COVID-19 on student learning gains along household income and parental education levels remains strong and is robust to various alternative model specifications.

Trends in learning gain over time

The interpretation of the differences in learning gains between the cohort affected by the COVID-19 induced lockdown and previous cohorts as attributable to the impact of COVID-19 hinges on the assumption that learning gains would have been similar in the absence of the pandemic. While this assumption is untestable, we can provide supporting evidence for it by looking at the variability of learning gains for all grades over time. If these trends are relatively stable, we can be reasonably sure that the difference between the 2019/2020 cohort and the previous cohorts was caused by the impact of the pandemic. Figs 57 show the trends in learning gains per grade over time by plotting the (inverse probability population weighted) unstandardized learning gains for all available cohorts in reading, spelling, and math respectively. Because our data does not go back equally far for all grades, the lines are of different length. As noted earlier, we do not have information on grade 1 learning gains for the reading domain, as grade 1 students do not take a midterm test for this domain. For higher grades, we also have fewer available cohorts due to the manner in which data was collected (see also Table 1). Hence, for grade 2 we have data going back to academic year 2014/2015, for grade 3 from 2015/2016 onwards, for grade 4 starting in 2016/2017, and grade 5 starting 2017/2018.

Fig 7. Trends in learning gain over time–math.

Fig 7

Fig 6. Trends in learning gain over time–spelling.

Fig 6

The figures clearly show a marked decrease in learning gains between the COVID-19 affected cohort of the school year 2019/2020 relative to the prior cohorts in all domains and for most grades. For the spelling and math domains, learning gains prior to the COVID-19 cohorts were remarkably stable over time across grades 1 through 4. For grade 5, the 2018/2019 cohort had somewhat lower learning gains than the 2017/2018 cohort. However, since these are the only 2 pre-COVID-19 cohorts for which grade 5 data is available, it is unclear whether this represents a somewhat random fluctuation between cohorts, or whether it is part of a longer trend in declining grade 5 learning gain. For reading, the results are less clear. Grades 2 and 3 show a less stable trend over time than the other grades. For our main estimation sample of the 2017 and 2018 cohorts comprising the control group however, the differences in learning gain between these two cohorts is relatively small for all grades.

A different way of showing whether the 2019/2020 COVID-19 affected cohort is somewhat of an outlier in terms of their regular learning gain, is to plot the prior performance of this cohort during the years in which there was no pandemic and compare it to the performance of an earlier cohort. Figs 810 show the learning gain in all prior grades of the students who were in grade 5 during the 2019/2020 school year and those who were in grade 5 during the 2018/2019 school year for reading, spelling and math respectively. If the 2019/2020 cohort is relatively similar to the prior cohort, we should expect to see similar levels (and trends) of learning gain for grades 1 through 4. The pandemic occurred during grade 5 for the 2019/2020 cohort, and we should therefore expect lower levels of learning gain in grade 5 for the 2019/2020 cohort compared to the students that were in grade 5 during the 2018/2019 school year.

Fig 8. Learning gain: Grade 5 students of 2018/2019 compared to Grade 5 students of 2019/2020 –reading.

Fig 8

Fig 9. Learning gain: Grade 5 students of 2018/2019 compared to Grade 5 students of 2019/2020 –spelling.

Fig 9

Looking at the figures, this is indeed what we see for spelling and math. Both cohorts are on remarkably similar learning gain trajectories from grade 1 through grade 4. In grade 5, the 2019/2020 cohort experiences a stronger decline in learning gain, especially in math, than the students of the previous cohort that were unaffected by the pandemic. For reading, the results are again less stable. The 2018/2019 cohort experienced a stronger decline in learning gain in grade 3 relative to the other grades and the 2019/2020 cohort. The overall pattern of decreasing learning gain from grade 2 to grade 3 and increasing learning gain from grade 3 to grade 4 is visible for both cohorts, however, and the grade 5 learning gain of the pandemic-affected 2019/2020 cohort does decrease more strongly than the learning gain of the prior, unaffected cohort.

Conclusions

This study describes the additional inequality in learning gains of primary school students in the Netherlands during 12 weeks of disrupted learning due to the COVID-19-pandemic for three domains: reading, spelling and math. We show large inequalities in the learning loss based on parental education and parental income, on top of already existing inequalities. The additional inequality in learning gains is largest among grades 2 and 3.

These results are quite alarming and indicate an average delay in learning of about 5.5 weeks for reading, and around 3 weeks for spelling and math with larger deficits in the higher grades. Relative to the period between the midterm- and end-of-term tests of around 20 weeks, this is rather a lot. It is to some extent reassuring that in general the decline in learning gains do not take place in the lowest grades in which the foundation for math and language skills are laid [34]. On the other hand, the decline in learning gains is larger for students from a low socioeconomic background (lower parental education and household income) for spelling an math and these inequalities are higher in the early grades. We see a delay of around 4 weeks for spelling and math for students with low-educated parents. This implies that during the school closure period students with low-educated parents hardly learned anything. However, there are no statistically significant socioeconomic status differences in reading scores. Previous research has shown that the home environment is important for the development of literacy skills and reading motivation [35, 36]. In line with this finding some have also suggested that center-based reading interventions might be less effective than mathematics interventions [37, 38]. Our finding that reading skills are less affected by the school closure support the idea that the family environment plays an important role in the development of reading skills, also when schools are open. In contrast, the limited increase in socioeconomic inequalities in reading skills is not in line with our expectations. Normally, family environment is an important source of inequality in reading skills [36] and we would expect inequalities to rise when schools closed and the role of family environment increased. We attribute the additional inequality in learning loss of students in math and spelling based on parental education and income to better resources these students had: Students with higher-educated parents most likely all possessed a laptop, had parents that were able and willing to help with schoolwork and could even afford additional private tutoring if needed.

The results call for national focus on reducing the learning loss of students from lower-educated parents and lower household income. It is worrisome and unfortunately not unlikely that the increased inequalities in learning loss due to the pandemic may lead to long lasting inequalities, deepening the gap in adult outcomes between groups in the population. This very much stresses the need for targeted interventions to reduce the current inequalities in learning loss caused by the pandemic.

This article shows that schools matter, specifically for the most vulnerable groups. Distance learning may prevent part of the damage but cannot compensate for classroom teaching. The policy implications of these findings are therefore twofold: 1) Government budgets that are made available to make up for learning loss should give schools with many students from low-educated parents and low household income a large share of the pie, and 2) in an event of another crisis, or the current COVID-19-pandemic continues, schools should be closed only as a very last resort to avoid further inequalities.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because they are part of the data at Statistics Netherlands and cannot be exported from the secured virtual environment at Statistics Netherlands. However, all data underlying the results presented are available at Statistics Netherlands and use can be requested by national and international researchers via the Netherlands Cohort Study on Education (NCO) and Statistics Netherlands; data access requests may be sent to info@nationaalcohortonderzoek.nl. An extensive description of the data and the access procedure can be found in Haelermans, C., T. Huijgen, M. Jacobs, M. Levels, R. van der Velden, L. van Vugt and S. van Wetten (2020). Using Data to Advance Educational Research, Policy and Practice: Design, Content and Research Potential of the Netherlands Cohort Study on Education. European Sociological Review, 36(4), 643-662, https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/36/4/643/5871552?login=true.

Funding Statement

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw, https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/) (project 10430 03201 0014). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Grant acquired by CH, RK, TP-B, RvdV, IdW.

References

  • 1.UNICEF. COVID-19: Schools for more than 168 million children globally have been completely closed for almost a full year, says UNICEF 2021. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/schools-more-168-million-children-globally-have-been-completely-closed.
  • 2.Maldonado JE, De Witte K. The effect of school closures on standardised student test outcomes. British Educational Research Journal. 2020. doi: 10.1002/berj.3616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Engzell P, Frey A, Verhagen MD. Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021;118(17). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2022376118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Blainey K, Hiorns C, Hannay T. The Impact of Lockdown on Children’s Education: A Nationwide Analysis. RS Assessment from Hodder Education. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chetty RF, Friedman J.N., Hendren N.; Stepner M. The Economic Impacts of COVID-19: Evidence from a New Public Database Built Using Private Sector Data. National Bureau of Economic Research. 2020. Contract No.: w27431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kuhfeld M, Tarasawa B, Johnson A, Ruzek E, Lewis K. Learning during COVID-19: Initial findings on students’ reading and math achievement and growth. NWEA Brief, Portland, OR. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gore J, Fray L, Miller A, Harris J, Taggart W. The impact of COVID-19 on student learning in New South Wales primary schools: an empirical study. The Australian Educational Researcher. 2021:1–33. doi: 10.1007/s13384-021-00436-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rose ST, L. Twist; Lord, P.; Rutt, S.; Badr, K.;, Hope, C.; Styles, B. Impact of school closures and subsequent support strategies on attainment and socio-emotional wellbeing in Key Stage 1. London: 2021 Contract No.: Interim Paper 1.
  • 9.Contini D, Di Tommaso ML, Muratori C, Piazzalunga D, Schiavon L. The COVID-19 Pandemic and School Closure: Learning Loss in Mathematics in Primary Education. Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), 2021. Contract No.: 14785. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tomasik MJ, Helbling LA, Moser U. Educational gains of in‐person vs. distance learning in primary and secondary schools: A natural experiment during the COVID‐19 pandemic school closures in Switzerland. International Journal of Psychology. 2021;56(4):566–76. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12728 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schult J, Lindner MA. Did students learn less during the COVID-19 pandemic? Reading and mathematics competencies before and after the first pandemic wave. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kogan V, Lavertu S. The COVID-19 pandemic and student achievement on Ohio’s third-grade English language arts assessment. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Domingue BW, Hough HJ, Lang D, Yeatman J. Changing Patterns of Growth in Oral Reading Fluency during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Working Paper. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE. 2021.
  • 14.Pier L, Hough HJ, Christian M, Bookman N, Wilkenfeld B, Miller R. COVID-19 and the educational equity crisis: Evidence on learning loss from the CORE Data Collaborative. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sass T, Goldring T. Student Achievement Growth During the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Skar GBU, Graham S, Huebner A. Learning loss during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of emergency remote instruction on first grade students’ writing: A natural experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2021. doi: 10.1037/edu0000701 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Orlov GM, McKee D.; Berry J.; Boyle A.; DiCiccio T; Ransom T.; et al. Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: It is not who you teach, but how you teach. Economics Letters. 2021;202. doi: 10.23736/S2724-5276.21.06325-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gonzalez T, De La Rubia M, Hincz KP, Comas-Lopez M, Subirats L, Fort S, et al. Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PloS one. 2020;15(10):e0239490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bakker TDH C., Blaauboer M. Instroom en studieresultaten aan de vu ten tijde van corona. NRO symposium hoger onderwijs: Nieuwe richtingen na de pandemie? 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bol T. Inequality in homeschooling during the Corona crisis in the Netherlands. First results from the LISS Panel. 2020. doi: 10.31235/osf.io/hf32q [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bol T, Belfi B, Borghans L. Thuisonderwijs tijdens de corona-crisis. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cullinane C, Montacute R. Research Brief: April 2020: COVID-19 and Social Mobility Impact Brief# 1: School Shutdown. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Andrew A, Cattan S, Costa-Dias M, Farquharson C, Kraftman L, Krutikova S, et al. Learning during the lockdown: real-time data on children’s experiences during home learning. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hanushek EA, Schwerdt G, Wiederhold S, Woessmann L. Returns to skills around the world: Evidence from PIAAC. European Economic Review. 2015;73:103–30. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bisschop P, Van den Berg E, Van der Ven K, De Geus W, Kooij D. Aanvullend en particulier onderwijs: Onderzoek naar de verschijningsvormen en omvang van aanvullend en particulier onderwijs en motieven voor deelname. SEO Economisch Onderzoek & Oberon, 2019. Contract No.: 2019–64. 11789412 [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Statistics Netherlands. The Netherlands leads Europe in internet access 2018. Available from: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/05/the-netherlands-leads-europe-in-internet-access.
  • 27.SIVON. Opnieuw extra geld voor laptops en tablets voor onderwijs op afstand 2020. Available from: https://www.sivon.nl/actueel/opnieuw-extra-geld-voor-laptops-entablets-voor-onderwijs-op-afstand/.
  • 28.Grätz M, Lipps O. Large loss in studying time during the closure of schools in Switzerland in 2020. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. 2021;71:100554. doi: 10.1016/j.rssm.2020.100554 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Grewenig E, Lergetporer P, Werner K, Woessmann L, Zierow L. COVID-19 and educational inequality: how school closures affect low-and high-achieving students. European economic review. 2021:103920. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.103920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Commission E. The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). Thematic chapter. 2020.
  • 31.Istat. Spazi in casa e disponibilità di computer per bambini e ragazzi. 2020. Available from: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/240949.
  • 32.Haelermans C, Huijgen T, Jacobs M, Levels M, van der Velden R, van Vugt L, et al. Using data to advance educational research, policy, and practice: Design, content, and research potential of the Netherlands Cohort Study on Education. European Sociological Review. 2020;36(4):643–62. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcaa027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Smeets R, Ter Weel B, Zwetslott J. Ongelijk gebruik van online leermiddelen tijdens de lockdown 2020. Available from: https://esb.nu/esb/20061599/ongelijk-gebruik-van-online-leermiddelen-tijdens-de-lockdown#:~:text=Het%20lijkt%20er%20dus%20op,de%20onderwijsmogelijkheden%20kunnen%20zijn%20toegenomen.
  • 34.Cunha F, Heckman J. The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review. 2007;97(2):31–47. doi: 10.1257/aer.97.2.31 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Villiger C, Niggli A, Wandeler C, Kutzelmann S. Does family make a difference? Mid-term effects of a school/home-based intervention program to enhance reading motivation. Learning and Instruction. 2012;22(2):79–91. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Van Steensel R, McElvany N, Kurvers J, Herppich S. How effective are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2011;81(1):69–96. doi: 10.3102/0034654310388819 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Guskey TR, Pigott TD. Research on group-based mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research. 1988;81(4):197–216. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1988.10885824 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.De Boer H, Donker AS, Van der Werf MP. Effects of the attributes of educational interventions on students’ academic performance: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2014;84(4):509–45. doi: 10.3102/0034654314540006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gabriel A Picone

20 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-21410

Sharp increase in inequality in education in times of the COVID-19-pandemic

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Haelermans,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gabriel A. Picone

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the Methods section and the online submission form, please provide additional information about the participant records used in your study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

[The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (project 10430 03201 0014). ]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

 [The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw, https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/) (project 10430 03201 0014). 

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Grant acquired by CH, RK, SV, TP-B, RvdV, SvW, IdW]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In general, the article looks interesting and gives good and useful information. There are, however, some minor points that must be corrected before publication.

- One of the most important arguments of this article, compared to previous similar publications is:

"we look in greater detail at background differences between students and present results showing that the learning loss due

to the school closures are unequally distributed and that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have suffered much more than their fellow students."

I would like to understand better what is the meaning of "greater detail" since a new publication should offer something different and it should be clearly explained.

- Getting data from 2018 regarding internet access in Dutch households seems to be a source of information that can be updated for sure with more recent data sources.

- Materials and methods: Standardized tests had the same format in the pandemic? Were they online or face-to-face?

I think authors should (if possible) to describe a little bit better the correction CITO made related to the delay in the tests. This fact is very important because authors are analyzing differences in those tests, actually. We must be sure that there is not any influence in that sense.

- Another point that can be improved is the selection of groups when analyzing parents' conditions. It could be done with easy clustering algorithms to check if their groups are correctly separated. Alternatively, a better explanation about why authors selected three groups (instead of four or two, for example) could be adequate.

-Typos: "the school closures and the COVID-1919-pandemic than others"

"paper comes down to 201819 students in 1178"

"This is implies that during the"

...

Congratulations for your nice work.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: G. M. Sacha

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Feb 2;17(2):e0261114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261114.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Sep 2021

Sharp increase in inequality in education in times of the COVID-19-pandemic

PLOS ONE

September 2021

First, let us express our gratitude for your and the reviewers’ constructive comments and remarks. They have helped us a lot in revising and essentially improving the paper. We believe that we have been able to address all of your comments. We hope that you will be satisfied by the respective revisions and replies. Below is a point-by-point response to the main comments that you stressed in the decision email.

Response to main points mentioned by the editor

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

- Thank you for reminding us about this and our apologies that we did not have this before. We have now adjusted the manuscript to the journals style requirements, including the referencing style.

In the Methods section and the online submission form, please provide additional information about the participant records used in your study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them.

- We have now added the following to the manuscript on page 7:

“Note that the data in the environment of Statistics Netherlands are pseudonymized such that data are fully anonymous to the researchers that use these data. The pseudonymization key is only known to Statistics Netherlands and they provide separate datasets with the same person identifier, such that the data can be matched, but individuals cannot be identified by the researchers.”

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement.

- Thank you for pointing out that we did not do this in the correct way. We have now removed the funding related text from the manuscript. The Funding statement already was and still is complete, so that does not need to be changed.

In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety.

- Our apologies, it seems that something went wrong with the data availability statement. We have adjusted that now. Please let us know should the current data availability statement not be sufficient.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

- Thank you. We have now updated our reference list, and made sure that it’s complete and correct.

Response to reviewer 1

First, let us express our gratitude for your positive words, and constructive comments and remarks. They have helped us a lot in revising and essentially improving the paper. We believe that we have been able to address all of your and their comments. We hope that you will be satisfied by the respective revisions and replies.

In general, the article looks interesting and gives good and useful information.

- Thank you.

There are, however, some minor points that must be corrected before publication.

One of the most important arguments of this article, compared to previous similar publications is:

"we look in greater detail at background differences between students and present results showing that the learning loss due to the school closures are unequally distributed and that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have suffered much more than their fellow students."

I would like to understand better what is the meaning of "greater detail" since a new publication should offer something different and it should be clearly explained.

- Thank you for this comment. We should indeed have been more specific in discussing our contribution to the existing literature with this study. We have now added some additional explanation to the manuscript, and the text on page 3 we have now added the following:

“In comparison with the study that is most similar that also uses Dutch data (Engzell et al. 2020), our study complements and improves the findings for several reasons. 1) We have a larger sample (18% of all Dutch primary schools, instead of 15%), 2) we have much better and richer student background information at the individual level (instead of socio-economic status measured at the neighborhood level, which is very imprecise), 3) we have multiple student background variables that indicate whether a student is disadvantaged or not, and 4) we focus on effects for separate grade levels, showing large variation there, instead of only looking at overall effects.”

Getting data from 2018 regarding internet access in Dutch households seems to be a source of information that can be updated for sure with more recent data sources.

- Thank you for pointing this out. You are right, and we have now replaced the source by the most recently available data, which is from 2020. The share of households with internet access is the same though, so we did not change the percentage in the text.

Materials and methods: Standardized tests had the same format in the pandemic? Were they online or face-to-face?

- Yes indeed, the standardized test during the pandemic were exactly the same as before the pandemic. For most schools, these are digital tests that take place at school. Some schools opt for the pen-and-paper version. But there is there is no within school variation between type and format of the tests before and during the pandemic. We have now also added this information to the manuscript on page 6.

I think authors should (if possible) to describe a little bit better the correction CITO made related to the delay in the tests. This fact is very important because authors are analyzing differences in those tests, actually. We must be sure that there is not any influence in that sense.

- You are raising a fair point here. Unfortunately, the details of the correction that CITO has applied to these tests are only known to CITO, and not shared with schools or researchers using these data. However, CITO have a long history of excellent expertise in test development, calibration and correction, so we trust in CITOs many years of experience in these matters.

Having said that, we did include a dummy in all our analyses whether a student participated in a test before or after the summer break, and this does not influence our results. Furthermore, we have also checked whether we find similar results when we only focus on the students that wrote the test before the summer break (so in the regular time frame of the test), and we do not find different results or draw different conclusions. Therefore, we are not worried that the corrected test influences the results in any way.

Another point that can be improved is the selection of groups when analyzing parents' conditions. It could be done with easy clustering algorithms to check if their groups are correctly separated. Alternatively, a better explanation about why authors selected three groups (instead of four or two, for example) could be adequate.

- Thank you for pointing out that we should have explained this in a better way. We have now done that in both the description of the student background variables, and in the description of the results.

On page 7 we have added the following sentence:

“This division of parental education over three categories is also being used in the Netherlands Cohort Study on Education and leads to a division in categories that is not only relevant at the content level, but also provides us with large enough groups to have statistical power.”

Furthermore, on page 15 we have added the following sentence to the results:

“(Note that alternative specifications in which we use four categories of parental education (in a similar way as the Dutch Inspectorate of Education), or in which we use three categories which are not based on parental education, but on the indication (used for funding purposes) whether a child is a regular child, has a disadvantaged background or a very disadvantaged background, yield very similar results and the same conclusions.)”

Typos: "the school closures and the COVID-1919-pandemic than others"

"paper comes down to 201819 students in 1178"

"This is implies that during the"

- Thank you, we have corrected the typos in the text and checked once more for other typos as well.

Congratulations for your nice work.

- Thank you, and thank you once more for your valuable comments. We hope we have been able to deal with your comments in a satisfactory way.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Jérôme Prado

19 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-21410R1Sharp increase in inequality in education in times of the COVID-19-pandemicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Haelermans, Let me first apologize for the delay in processing your manuscript on behalf of PLOS ONE. I took over the editorial duty and, because I always aim to obtain  two expert opinions on every manuscript, decided to ask for an additional expertise. You will find the review at the bottom of this email. As you will see, this second reviewer is quite positive about your study but asks for some clarifications. I concur with the reviewer that your study is timely, interesting and relevant and I would encourage you to address the reviewer's comment.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jérôme Prado

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #2: This an interesting and very timely study on pertinent issues in education policy. Below are some concerns I have about the study. Clarifying those would be helpful.

Major Comments:

1. How does the sample used in the study compare to the overall school population in the Netherlands? In other words, how representative is the sample of Netherlands nationally? The authors refer to using a national sample in calculating weights. How do averages of various variables in the study sample compare to those in the national sample?

2. Relatedly, what proportion of total schools in Netherlands does the sample of schools, students and test records in Table 2 represent?

3. On page 6 authors mention that “Test supplier CITO made a recalculation for all test scores to correct for this delayed testing.” Is CITO the only supplier that did this recalculation or did other mentioned suppliers did it too? What kind of impact can we expect this calculation to have on the scores, especially in comparison to other suppliers and to previous years scores? While authors cannot get to the actual calculation CITO did, some explanation would be helpful.

4. Do the authors have any information on teachers or school level variables? Does the study account for teacher and school level effects in their estimations? For example we can expect some teachers to do better in remote instruction that others. Are/Can the estimations accounting for this in any way?

5. Parental Education: They mention on page 7 that “Parental education is defined as low

when the highest obtained degree of (one) the parents is in pre-vocati…..”. They mention further down in the text that they use the higher of the two parents educational attainment. Would it not be pertinent instead to also look at this my mother/father or by the parent with the larger share of child responsibilities? Perhaps, if we expect the parent with lower educational attainment to be more responsible for child caring, look at estimates along that margin?

6. The school closure periods mentioned on page 4 is not very long. How do authors see this in light of closure in other parts of the world e.g. U.S. where schools remained closed for extended periods of time? Can we expect more widening of gaps across different groups if closure remained longer?

7. During the time period of the closure, the vulnerable kids were apparently still allowed to attend schools. How does this, if at all, interact with the income and education of the households. Are authors able to identify students who continued attending during the closure?

8. Results: Education literature generally finds that educational interventions bring a larger change in math and a smaller change in reading scores, partly because reading is not just dependent on what is taught in school but requires stronger input from home also. It would be nice to tie in that literature with the Math vs. Reading losses the authors estimates

9. How should we see migrants in terms of income and education? In other words what is the average education level of migrants in Netherlands and what income category should we expect them to fall into. In other words, more clarity on needed for the reader on analysis over migration vs. income or education.

10. It is not clear what Table 3 is showing. Is it the number of test score observations? If yes, why do we have decimals? If no, then are these some averages of test scores ?

11. Figure 5, 6 and 7 need to be clearer. I could not understand what was being shown by each line.

Minor Comments

1. Relevant study to cite on the effect of pandemic on student learning : https://gpl.gsu.edu/download/student-achievement-growth-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-report-appendix/?wpdmdl=2101&refresh=614b7200638111632334336

2. Contribution: I think in terms of contribution the authors need to think beyond the Dutch data. They emphasize on page 3 the comparison to other work that uses Dutch data. I would urge them to look at other studies, in different countries, that look at inequality in education outcomes during the pandemic and situate their study in the wider literature.

3. The authors mention on page 3 their contribution compared to an existing study on Dutch data. I don’t think having an 18% vs 15% sample is a contribution, unless the new sample is more representative for some reason. The other points about having better and richer background info is certainly something to point out.

Typos

Page 25: “figs” should be replaced by Figures

Page 4 : “ At total of 96% of Dutch households “have” internet acces…”

Page 2: For higher education the results are less consistent: some find negative effects [6] while others indicate that distance learning might have made students more efficient [7] or see little effects [8].

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Feb 2;17(2):e0261114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261114.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Nov 2021

Sharp increase in inequality in education in times of the COVID-19-pandemic

PLOS ONE

November 2021

Response to reviewer 2

First, let us express our gratitude for your positive words, and constructive and insightful comments and remarks. They have helped us a lot in revising and essentially improving the paper. We believe that we have been able to address all of your and their comments. Based on the comments we extended our discussion of the international literature on the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in children’s educational development, we performed additional robustness checks (e.g., school fixed effects) and clarified some of our tables and figures. We address the comments of the reviewer hereafter in more detail in a point-by-point response. We hope that you will be satisfied by the respective revisions and replies.

This an interesting and very timely study on pertinent issues in education policy.

Thank you.

Below are some concerns I have about the study. Clarifying those would be helpful.

1. How does the sample used in the study compare to the overall school population in the Netherlands? In other words, how representative is the sample of Netherlands nationally? The authors refer to using a national sample in calculating weights. How do averages of various variables in the study sample compare to those in the national sample?

Schools are only included in our sample if they gave permission to share their test scores with Statistics Netherlands. As a result, our sample is not an exact representation of the population of Dutch primary school students. We added Table 3 to the manuscript to show how our study sample compares to the full population. Overall, our sample contains an overrepresentation of one-parent households (19.00% versus 16.16% in the full population), students with a non-western migration background (20.82% versus 14.36%), students with low parental income (24.06% versus 21.20%), and an underrepresentation of students from which both parents work (68.47% versus 70.91%). Furthermore, schools in our sample tend to be larger schools located in more urbanized areas. As you mention already, we use inverse probability weights to minimize the impact of the selectivity of our sample.

Table 3. Representativeness of sample compared to full population on student and school background variables

Full population Sample

Variables Percentage Percentage

Gender

Female 49.32 49.75

Migration background

Dutch & western migration background 82.22 75.95

Non-western migration background 17.51 24.04

Missing 0.27 0.01

Parental income

Low income 21.20 24.06

Medium income 53.38 50.54

High income 24.02 24.53

Missing 1.41 0.87

Parental education

Low educated 10.06 11.50

Medium educated 29.87 29.03

High educated 47.59 48.95

Missing 12.48 10.52

School size

Less than 141 students 36.71 28.95

Between 141 – 220 students 30.27 31.26

More than 220 students 33.01 39.79

School level pct of low educated parents

Below 5,5% 33.12 32.22

Between 5,5% and 12% 33.47 32.78

Above 12% 33.41 35.00

Urbanisation level

Low (< 500 adresses/km2) 7.86 5.63

Limited (500 – 1000 adresses/km2) 21.87 14.41

Medium (1000 – 1500 adresses/km2 17.58 12.50

Strong (1500 – 2500 adresses/km2) 30.93 32.66

Very strong (>=2500 adresses/km2) 21.77 34.81

Denomination

Public school 29.79 30.55

Schools based on philosophies 6.10 3.77

Schools based on religious beliefs 64.02 65.69

Observations

Total number 2,458,376 263,553

Note: N of students is based on the number of unique students in the years 2017/2018, 2018/2019 and 2019/2020

2. Relatedly, what proportion of total schools in Netherlands does the sample of schools, students and test records in Table 2 represent?

Thank you for pointing out that this was not clear. In the schoolyear 2019/2020, we had a total number of 6174 primary schools in the Netherlands. The 1178 schools in our sample therefore comprise a proportion of 19% of the total number of schools.

Having said that, we realised that the distinction between test supplier and administrative system could be confusing (see your next question and our answer). Moreover, the distinction between the different administration systems is not relevant for our analyses. Therefore, we decided to no longer mention the names of the administration systems in our paper and to remove Table 2.

3. On page 6 authors mention that “Test supplier CITO made a recalculation for all test scores to correct for this delayed testing.” Is CITO the only supplier that did this recalculation or did other mentioned suppliers did it too? What kind of impact can we expect this calculation to have on the scores, especially in comparison to other suppliers and to previous years scores? While authors cannot get to the actual calculation CITO did, some explanation would be helpful.

Again: thank you for making us realise this was unclear. Based on your question we realised that there might be confusion between what a test supplier is and what an administrative system is. In the previous version of the paper, we made a distinction between test suppliers and administrative systems. All children in our sample made tests of a supplier called CITO. CITO is by far the largest test supplier in the Netherlands. The test scores of the CITO-tests are saved in an administration system. Schools can choose themselves which administration system they prefer. Our dataset is based on the data stored in three types of administration systems: CITO-LOVS, ParnasSys and ESIS. Former table 2 showed the number of schools per administration system.

However, based on your comment, we realised that the names CITO-LOVS (administration system) and CITO (test supplier) could confuse our readers. As explained in our answer to your previous question, we have now removed Table 2.

So as an answer to your questions 3: there is only one test supplier that we include in our analyses, namely CITO. Therefore, the scores of all students in our sample who performed the test after the summer were corrected. By correcting for the delay, the test supplier aimed to make the test scores comparable to the test scores of students who took the test before summer, to account for the extra time the students had until the test was taken. Note that the test supplier did not correct for the fact that this test was taken in the period of COVID-19 in any way, meaning that they did not correct for lower scores compared to previous years. To make sure our results are not biased by the differences in the timing of the test we also include a dummy in our regression analyses indicating whether a test was made before (=0) or after (=1) summer. Based on your comment, we improved our explanation of the differences in test scores before and after the summer on page 6.

4. Do the authors have any information on teachers or school level variables? Does the study account for teacher and school level effects in their estimations? For example we can expect some teachers to do better in remote instruction that others. Are/Can the estimations account for this in any way?

Thank you for this question. We do have information on school level variables, but unfortunately we do not have any information on the teachers. We agree that school and teacher level factors play a role in the extent to which the COVID-19 related school closings affected student learning. The association between student characteristics and learning gains might be driven by, for example, differences between schools serving different types of student populations. To account for this possibility, we have added a new analysis incorporating Fixed Effects at the school level. These can be found in Table 9 (split by grade level) on page 24 and Table 10 (pooled over all grades) on page 25. In this specification, we account for any (un)observed time invariant differences between schools that could have an effect on the strength of the relationship between student characteristics and the COVID-19 related reductions in learning gains. The results show that the estimations remain unaffected. The possibility that different types of teachers may differentially affect student learning gains unfortunately cannot be tested, as we do not have information on the teachers to whom students have been assigned.

5. Parental Education: They mention on page 7 that “Parental education is defined as low

when the highest obtained degree of (one) the parents is in pre-vocati…..”. They mention further down in the text that they use the higher of the two parents educational attainment. Would it not be pertinent instead to also look at this my mother/father or by the parent with the larger share of child responsibilities? Perhaps, if we expect the parent with lower educational attainment to be more responsible for child caring, look at estimates along that margin?

Thank you for this very relevant question. However, we believe that in our setup, parents’ highest obtained level of education is still the best proxy for children’s socioeconomic background for several reasons. One is that we cannot be certain as to which parent has the larger share of child responsibilities. Especially during the time of the pandemic and the increase in remote working, the balance between work and family life is likely to have shifted compared to previous years. This might render interpretation of the results difficult. Secondly, the administrative data on parents’ highest obtained level of education does not yet fully cover the entire population of the Netherlands. In combining the education data from both mother and father, the share of missing observations is reduced. Due to assortative mating there is a relatively high correlation between the highest obtained level of education of both mother and father. Hence, the education of one of the parents is also an indicator of the educational attainment of the other parent.

Nevertheless, you are right that it is instructive to look at the sensitivity of our results to running estimations including either the mother’s or father’s education, or both at the same time, instead of the highest level. The results of this exercise show that pooled over all grades, the main association between parental education and learning loss during the pandemic holds for all three subjects. For reading, maternal education enters more significantly than paternal education, while for the other subjects there is no difference. In the analyses by grade, we again see no differences for spelling and math. For reading, high paternal education appears to be more significantly related to learning losses in grades 3, 4, and 5. However, these results do not survive our standard robustness specifications. Despite the small differences in results based on paternal and maternal education and children’s reading, our overall conclusions do not change when paternal education or maternal education is used. Because of these results, as well as the aforementioned conceptual reasons, we strongly favour the models in which the highest level of parental education is used.

6. The school closure periods mentioned on page 4 is not very long. How do authors see this in light of closure in other parts of the world e.g. U.S. where schools remained closed for extended periods of time? Can we expect more widening of gaps across different groups if closure remained longer?

We agree with you that children in countries with longer school closings and less internet access might have experienced larger learning losses and larger inequalities because they experienced prolonged periods of limited and unequal excess to education. However, the current literature is inconclusive and more research is needed to draw pertinent conclusions on the association between the length of the lockdown and children’s educational progress. For example, a recent study in Italy by Contini et al (2021) reports larger learning losses (0.19 SD) than previous studies in the Netherlands (0.08 SD) by Engzell et al (2021). In Italy schools were closed for 15 weeks (one of the first and longest school closings in Europe). Moreover, Italy has one of the lowest share of households with a broadband connection and 12% of the students between 6 and 17 years old did not have access to a computer or digital tools at home in 2018/2019. However, contradicting the idea that longer school closings result in larger learning deficits, a study in Belgium (8.5 weeks of school closing) reports a reduction in mathematics scores of 0.19 SD which is similar in size to the effects found in Italy (15 weeks). Altogether, more research based on country comparisons is needed to be able to state that longer lockdowns result in larger learning deficits and an increase in educational inequalities. We have added a paragraph to reflect on country differences on page 4 and 5.

7. During the time period of the closure, the vulnerable kids were apparently still allowed to attend schools. How does this, if at all, interact with the income and education of the households. Are authors able to identify students who continued attending during the closure?

Thank you for this question. When the Dutch government decided to close schools, some children still went to school. The government prescribed that schools could allow ‘vulnerable’ children as well as children of parents with essential occupations at school. These rules on which children could and could not attend school were purposely vague and schools could mostly define their own policies. As a result, we do not know which children went to school and which children stayed at home. However, especially during the first lockdown, which is the subject of our study, schools were only open for emergencies and the number of children at school was very low. Based on a survey by the General Association of School Leaders about 5% of the students went to school during the first lockdown. Moreover, children who went to school during the school closings usually followed a program which was similar to the program of the children who stayed at home. We have now also added a few sentences on this on page 4. Finally, due to the various reasons to let children spend their day at school, the group of children at school was diverse and exceeded low socioeconomic status families. Since the number of children that attended school is not registered in our data, we cannot make a distinction between children who attended school and who did not attend school during the school closure so we cannot examine the differences in performances based on school attendance.

Whether the presence of a small group of children at school is problematic for the analyses depends on your goal. We argue that we estimate the effect of the Dutch educational policies during the pandemic on children’s education progress. Allowing a selective group of children at school is part of the educational policies and therefore not problematic for our analyses. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that school attendance by vulnerable groups might cause a bias if one wants to estimate the effect of distance education on educational progress. If a bias would occur, one might argue that the results reported in our studies underestimate the inequalities based on parents’ education and income since some inequalities might have been cushioned by school attendance. However, we argue that the bias would be small since the number of children allowed at school was small and the group of children relatively diverse. Moreover, the educational program of children at school and children at home was relatively similar.

8. Results: Education literature generally finds that educational interventions bring a larger change in math and a smaller change in reading scores, partly because reading is not just dependent on what is taught in school but requires stronger input from home also. It would be nice to tie in that literature with the Math vs. Reading losses the authors estimates

Thank you for the helpful literature suggestion. The idea that family environment plays an important role in the development of reading skills is supported by the finding that reading skills are less affected by the school closure. The relative importance of schools might be smaller for reading than for other subjects which explains the limited impact of the pandemic. In contrast, the limited increase in socioeconomic inequalities in reading skills is not in line with our expectations. Normally, family environment is an important source of inequality in reading skills and we would expect inequalities to rise when schools closed and the role of family environment increased. We have added a discussion on the differences between reading and mathematics before and during the pandemic in the Conclusions on page 32 and 33.

9. How should we see migrants in terms of income and education? In other words what is the average education level of migrants in Netherlands and what income category should we expect them to fall into. In other words, more clarity on needed for the reader on analysis over migration vs. income or education.

You are right that we should clarify to the international audience how students with a non-western migrant background should be seen in terms of parental education and household income. We have added the comparison of the share of low educated parents and low household income between students with a non-western migration background and native / western migrant students on page 8. The share of students with low educated parents and a low household income is higher for those with a non-western migration background than for those with a native / western migration background (26% vs. 6% for low parental education, 45% vs. 16% for low household income.

10. It is not clear what Table 3 is showing. Is it the number of test score observations? If yes, why do we have decimals? If no, then are these some averages of test scores?

In former Table 3 (Table 2 in the new revised version of the paper) we indeed show the number of observations (test records) per domain and per grade. We accidently used the European way to write this down. In continental Europe the meaning of punctuation marks is the exact opposite from Anglo-Saxon countries. In the Netherlands, and many other European countries, dots are used to separate large numbers while commas are used as decimal markers. We revised our punctuation across the manuscript to the Anglo-Saxon manners with commas to separate large numbers and dots as decimal markers. Hopefully this also clarifies the interpretation of Table 2.

11. Figure 5, 6 and 7 need to be clearer. I could not understand what was being shown by each line.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have first of all made these figures a bit bigger in the manuscript, such that they are better to read. Furthermore, as for explanation what information the figures show: Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the trends in learning gains per grade over time by plotting the unstandardized learning gains by cohort. Because our data does not go back equally far for all grades, the lines are of different length, which perhaps causes some confusion (see also table 1 on page 5). For grade 5, we have data for the grade 5 cohorts of 2017/2018 until 2019/2020, while for grade 2 we have data for students that were in grade 2 from the 2014/2015 academic year onwards. The main message from these figures is that we see a clear drop in learning gains for most grades during the 2019/2020 academic year for the three domains reading, spelling, and math. We have added some additional clarifying sentences regarding these figures on page 27.

Minor Comments

1. Relevant study to cite on the effect of pandemic on student learning : https://gpl.gsu.edu/download/student-achievement-growth-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-report-appendix/?wpdmdl=2101&refresh=614b7200638111632334336

Thank you for the useful suggestion. We included the report in our discussion of the literature on page 3.

2. Contribution: I think in terms of contribution the authors need to think beyond the Dutch data. They emphasize on page 3 the comparison to other work that uses Dutch data. I would urge them to look at other studies, in different countries, that look at inequality in education outcomes during the pandemic and situate their study in the wider literature.

We have improved the discussion of previous literature in the introduction (page 2 and 3). The new version of the introduction includes more references to the international literature and has been complemented with recent studies which appeared during the review process of our paper.

3. The authors mention on page 3 their contribution compared to an existing study on Dutch data. I don’t think having an 18% vs 15% sample is a contribution, unless the new sample is more representative for some reason. The other points about having better and richer background info is certainly something to point out.

In our enthusiasm to show the reader that we have a richer and better dataset to examine the consequences of the school closings on educational growth of primary school students in the Netherlands, we argued that our sample is also somewhat larger than the sample used by Engzell et al. Naturally, this is not the strongest argument. As the reviewer already states, our main improvement is based on the rich background information we have in our data. Based on this comment and the previous comment (minor 2) we have rewritten the paragraph on page 3. We now situate our study in the international literature. We emphasize now how the Dutch context offers, due to standardized testing, unique opportunities to study the consequences of the school closings. Moreover, we emphasize that we have, compared to previous studies in the Netherlands, better information on students’ background characteristics.

Typos

Thank you for pointing them out. We have now corrected the typos.

In addition to your comments, we have also substantially shortened the results section that contained a lot of repetition, and have removed some more typographical errors from the paper.

Thank you once more for your valuable comments. We hope we have been able to deal with your comments in a satisfactory way.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_revision2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Jérôme Prado

25 Nov 2021

Sharp increase in inequality in education in times of the COVID-19-pandemic

PONE-D-21-21410R2

Dear Dr. Haelermans,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jérôme Prado

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Jérôme Prado

7 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-21410R2

Sharp increase in inequality in education in times of the COVID-19-pandemic

Dear Dr. Haelermans:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jérôme Prado

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_revision2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because they are part of the data at Statistics Netherlands and cannot be exported from the secured virtual environment at Statistics Netherlands. However, all data underlying the results presented are available at Statistics Netherlands and use can be requested by national and international researchers via the Netherlands Cohort Study on Education (NCO) and Statistics Netherlands; data access requests may be sent to info@nationaalcohortonderzoek.nl. An extensive description of the data and the access procedure can be found in Haelermans, C., T. Huijgen, M. Jacobs, M. Levels, R. van der Velden, L. van Vugt and S. van Wetten (2020). Using Data to Advance Educational Research, Policy and Practice: Design, Content and Research Potential of the Netherlands Cohort Study on Education. European Sociological Review, 36(4), 643-662, https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/36/4/643/5871552?login=true.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES