PreprintCited by 262Education during COVID-19 pandemicSchool Choice and PerformanceCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 34 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Did Students Learn Less During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Reading and Mathematics Competencies Before and After the First Pandemic Wave

Schult, Johannes, Mahler, Nicole, Fauth, Benjamin, Lindner, Marlit Annalena·2021·School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Preprint — published as 10.1080/09243453.2022.2061014 · Paper page

Abstract

The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted regular classes in spring 2020. Temporary school closures supposedly led to a considerable learning loss, particularly for low-achieving students. Schools in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, were closed for two months. Although distance learning was implemented, students spent less time learning. Additionally, teachers were faced with organizational and technological challenges of remote learning environments. The present study investigates the competencies of fifth-graders, using large-scale assessment results in reading and mathematics from annual mandatory tests in September (each n > 80,000). In line with studies from other countries, competence scores were slightly lower in 2020 compared with the three previous years (–0.07 standard deviations for reading comprehension, –0.09 for operations, and –0.03 for numbers). Low-achieving readers managed to attain pre-pandemic competence levels. Regarding mathematics competencies, low-achieving students seem to have a learning backlog that deserves attention in future education. School characteristic such as the average socio-cultural capital and the proportion of students with migration background played a minor role in mediating the schools' learning loss. Still, lower socio-cultural capital was positively associated with larger learning loss in mathematics.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using statewide mandatory “Lernstand 5” data from Baden-Württemberg, this study compared incoming fifth-graders’ reading and mathematics competencies in September 2020 with those from 2017–2019. It found small average declines after the first COVID-19 school closures, with heterogeneous patterns across achievement levels and domains.

Key findings

  • Population means were slightly lower in 2020 than in 2017–2019: reading comprehension *d* = −0.07, operations *d* = −0.09, and numbers *d* = −0.03 (all *p* < .001).
  • Percentile comparisons showed mixed patterns: in reading, the bottom 5% was similar (2017–2019: 299 vs. 2020: 300), while the 25th–95th percentiles were 9–17 points lower in 2020; in operations, the 5th–75th percentiles were 1–28 points lower, but the 95th percentile was higher in 2020 (656 vs. 667); in numbers, the 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles were similar, while the 5th and 25th percentiles were 5–7 points lower.
  • School-level change scores correlated strongly between the two mathematics domains (*r* = .50, *p* < .001) and moderately between reading and mathematics (*r* = .26 and .29, both *p* < .001). Higher socio-cultural capital was associated with more positive operations change scores (*r* = .36, *p* < .001); other school-characteristic correlations were weak and heterogeneous.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional cohort comparison using the mandatory statewide “Lernstand 5” assessment at the beginning of grade 5 in Baden-Württemberg; the 2020 cohort was compared with the pooled 2017–2019 cohorts. Each year’s sample was *n* > 80,000; 2020 reading *n* = 81,810 and mathematics *n* = 81,550, with pooled 2017–2019 *n* = 249,862 for reading and 250,109 for mathematics.
  • Three linked competence tests were analyzed: reading comprehension, operations, and numbers. Scores were scaled with a Rasch model, ten plausible values were drawn, and Cohen’s *d* was used for standardized differences.
  • Analyses compared population means, selected percentiles (5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 95%), and school-level change scores. For school-characteristic analyses, *k* = 1,065 schools remained after excluding 152 schools; change scores were correlated with the proportion of students with migration background and schools’ socio-cultural capital (average books at home).

Limitations

  • Stated: the design does not allow causal interpretation; results are between-student comparisons, not intra-individual learning gains; background characteristics were available only at the school level, risking ecological fallacy; average books at home was estimated from previous cohorts; year-to-year fluctuation and test-specific variance may affect 2020 scores; the study covers only reading and mathematics competencies, not well-being or social relatedness; suspended grade repetitions may have added low-achieving students, theoretically accounting for up to 0.01 standard deviations.
  • Evident from the text: participation was voluntary for students with special needs and absent students did not participate, and participation rates were lower in 2020 (94.9% reading, 94.6% mathematics) than in prior years (about 96%).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/pqtgf

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

26 Not checked yet · 26 Own result · 16 Own method · 12 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given

Verify all 34 references — free account

Show all 50 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 23
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
35 of 35
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 2017-2019 cohorts are a valid pre-pandemic comparison for the 2020 cohort, such that observed differences reflect pandemic effects rather than secular trends or other cohort differences.

    “Using more than one year for comparisons reduces possible outlier effects. Using a higher number of pre-pandemic years for comparisons, however, could have introduced bias associated with more general long-term trends in student achievement (Stanat et al., 2017).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In Germany, students with low achievements often have to repeat a grade.

    “In Germany, students with low achievements often have to repeat a grade ( n = 262 after the school year 2018/19 in Baden-Württemberg).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the wake of the first COVID-19 wave, mandatory grade repetitions were suspended.

    “In the wake of the first COVID-19 wave, such mandatory grade repetitions were suspended.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The additional students in the 2020 cohort are on the lower end of the empirical ability distribution.

    “Assuming that the additional students are on the lower end of the empirical ability distribution, this effect may theoretically account for up to 0.01 standard deviations.”
4 of 4

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Ditton, H., & Krüsken, J. (2009). Denn wer hat, dem wird gegeben werden? Eine Längsschnittstudie zur Entwicklung schulischer Leistungen und den Effekten der sozialen Herkunft in der Grundschulzeit [To those who have, will more be given? A longitudinal study concerning the development of school achievement and the effects of social background during primary school]. Journal for Educational Research Online, 1 (1), 33-61.
  2. Krüsken, J. (2007). Entwicklung von Schülerleistungen und Zensuren in der Grundschule. In: H. Ditton (Ed.), Kompetenzaufbau und Laufbahnen im Schulsystem (pp. 41-62). Waxmann.
  3. Schulz, A., Leuders, T., & Rangel, U. (2017). Arithmetische Basiskompetenzen am Übergang zu Klasse 5 - eine empirie- und modellgestützte Diagnostik als Grundlage für spezifische Förderentscheidungen. In A. Fritz, S. Schmidt, & G. Ricken (Eds.), Handbuch Rechenschwäche (3rd ed., pp. 396-417). Beltz.
  4. Stanat, P., Schipolowski, S., Rjosk, C., Weirich, S., & Haag, N. (Eds.) (2017 ). IQBBildungstrend 2016. Kompetenzen in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik am Ende der 4. Jahrgangsstufe im zweiten Ländervergleich . Waxmann.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–111 of 111

Metadata

Authors
Schult, J., Mahler, N., Fauth, B., & Lindner, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (DE)
Corresponding author
Schult, Johannes
Venue
School Effectiveness and School Improvement
Published
2021-03-11
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
544-563
ISSN
0924-3453 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225792954
Cited by
262
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 46
FWCI
107.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • School Effectiveness and School Improvement (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
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, learning loss, school closures, distance education, reading comprehension, mathematical ability, fifth grade students, low-achieving students, socio-cultural capital, migration background, school characteristics, large-scale assessment, Baden-Württemberg

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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