The impact of COVID-19 on student learning in New South Wales primary schools: an empirical study
Open accessAbstract
The COVID-19 pandemic produced widespread disruption to schooling, impacting 90% of the world's students and moving entire school systems to remote and online learning. In the state of New South Wales, Australia, most students engaged in learning from home for at least eight weeks, with subsequent individual and intermittent school closures. However, while numerous claims have circulated in the popular media and in think tank reports, internationally, about the negative impacts on learning, there is limited empirical evidence of decreased student achievement. Drawing on data from more than 4800 Year 3 and 4 students from 113 NSW government schools, this paper compares student achievement during 2019 and 2020 in a sample of matched schools to examine the effects of the system-wide disruption. Somewhat surprisingly, our analysis found no significant differences between 2019 and 2020 in student achievement growth as measured by progressive achievement tests in mathematics or reading. A more nuanced picture emerges when the sample is examined by dis/advantage (ICSEA) and Year level. The Year 3 cohort in the least advantaged schools (ICSEA < 950) achieved 2 months less growth in mathematics, while the Year 3 students in mid-ICSEA schools (950-1050) achieved 2 months' additional growth. No significant differences were identified for Indigenous students or students located in regional locations. These results provide an important counter-narrative to widespread speculation about alarming levels of 'learning loss' for all students. While the lower achievement growth in mathematics for Year 3 students in lower ICSEA schools must be addressed as a matter of urgency to avoid further inequities, most students are, academically, where they are expected to be. Our findings are a testament to the dedicated work of teachers during the 2020 pandemic to ensure that learning for most students was not compromised, despite unusually trying circumstances.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
One study reported an interaction between grade and SES: for younger children from schools with low school-level SES, learning losses of 0.16 SD were found, while younger children from schools with medium school-level SES experienced learning gains of 0.15 SD (Gore et al., 2021).
“In this context, one study reported an interaction between grade and SES, that is, for younger children from schools with low school-level SES, learning losses of 0.16 SD were found, while younger children from schools with medium school-level SES experienced learning gains of 0.15 SD (Gore et al., 2021).”
From Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement-A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Gore et al., 2021
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTwo studies found positive effects on student achievement in mathematics and reading (Gore et al., 2021), or in reading only (Depping et al., 2021).
“Additionally, two studies found positive effects on student achievement in mathematics and reading (Gore et al., 2021), or in reading only (Depping et al., 2021).”
From Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement-A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Gore et al., 2021
The Results sections on student achievement and location report additional mathematics growth for Year 3 students in mid-ICSEA schools and additional reading growth in specific location subgroups. But neither Year 3 nor Year 4 showed an overall difference from the 2019 cohort, and low-ICSEA Year 3 students had less mathematics growth. The claim omits these subgroup limits and implies broadly positive effects in both subjects. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGore et al. (2021) reported that Year 3 students studying math in low ICSEA schools in Australia were two months behind the progress made by students in 2019.
“Gore et al. (2021) found Year 3 students studying math in low ICSEA (Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage) schools in Australia to be two months behind the progress students made in 2019.”
From Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Gore et al. (2021)
Gore et al. (2021) found that the only losses occurred among students from low-ICSEA schools.
“Gore et al. (2021) found the only losses to be among students from low-ICSEA schools”
From Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Gore et al. (2021)
Gore et al. (2021) found both instances of increased inequality and instances of no change.
“Gore et al. (2021) found instances of increased inequality as well as instances of no change.”
From Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Gore et al. (2021)
Gore et al. (2021) found no evidence of overall learning loss in Year 3 and 4 students in math and reading.
“Gore et al. (2021) found there to be no evidence of overall learning loss in Year 3 and 4 students in math and reading with the exceptions being Year 3 students in math in low-ICSEA schools who experienced losses, while mid-ICSEA students experienced small gains.”
From Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Gore et al. (2021)
Gore et al. (2021) found that mid-ICSEA students experienced small gains.
“Gore et al. (2021) found there to be no evidence of overall learning loss in Year 3 and 4 students in math and reading with the exceptions being Year 3 students in math in low-ICSEA schools who experienced losses, while mid-ICSEA students experienced small gains.”
From Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Gore et al. (2021)
Gore et al. (2021) observe that third-grade children in the most disadvantaged schools are two months behind their pre-pandemic achievement in math, with no significant effects in reading or math for fourth-grade students.
“Gore et al. (2021) observe that third-grade children in the most disadvantaged schools are two months behind their pre-pandemic achievement in math, with no significant effects in reading or math for fourth-grade students.”
From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Gore et al. (2021)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 201
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Hedges, L. V, & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://idostatistics.com/hedges-olkin-1985-statistical-methods-for-meta-analysis/. Accessed 12 June 2020.
- Hinson, J. M., LaPrairie, K., & Carroll, E. (2007). Emergency preparedness and E-Learning: recommendations for readiness. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 20(2), 3–7. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=9144bcc4-d27f-4d67-8da2-60a4c5a48401%40sessionmgr101. Accessed 3 June 2020.
- Authors
- Gore, J., Fray, L., Miller, A., Harris, J., & Taggart, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Gore, Jennifer
- Venue
- The Australian Educational Researcher
- Published
- 2021-03-12
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 605-637
- ISSN
- 0311-6999 (ISSN-L)
- 2210-5328
- PMC
- PMC7952260
- OpenAlex
- W3136110356
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 76.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Australian Educational Researcher (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- NSW Department of Education
- Paul Ramsay Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, student learning, elementary school, learning loss, academic performance, mathematics achievement, reading achievement, school closures, distance education, educational disadvantage, Indigenous students, regional students, New South Wales
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
