Shutting Schools: What The COVID Inquiries Tell Us

Image - Pavil Danilyuk

‍

Many of us will remember where we were when we listened to our then Prime Minister, Mr. Johnson, tell us we had to stop going to school for the foreseeable: “After schools shut their gates from Friday afternoon they will remain closed for most pupils until further notice… the objective is to slow the spread of the virus”. These words carried a weight which we may not have realised then, but their impact lives on, and will unfortunately do so for a long time.

‍

On that day, the 18th March 2020, students were informed that “exams will not take place as planned in May and June… we will make sure pupils get the qualifications they need and deserve for their academic career.” These words don't add up with perspectives of the young people directly affected. Research conducted by the Sutton Trust, a UK-based charity working to ensure young people have equal chances to succeed in their post-16 education, evidenced that “43% of university applicants studying for A levels [felt] that the new assessment procedure will have a negative impact on their grades, along with “72% feeling that the new grading system is less fair than in a normal year”. Perhaps even more significantly, a staggering 80% of young people say their academic progress has suffered as a result of the pandemic and half report feeling less motivated to study and learn, along with almost half believing they have been unable to catch up with lost learning.

‍

In addition to this, research found by the London School of Economics' Millennium Cohort study has enabled them to predict that less than four in ten pupils in England in 2030 will attain a grade 5 or higher in English and Mathematics GCSEs – this is lower than the 45.3 per cent who achieved these grades in 2022/23, demonstrating the now palpable impact of the strain placed on education during the pandemic.

‍

Last month, legal inquiries into the Tory cabinet's handling of this crisis began. Fortunately, Johnson's words in the witness box proved he recognises both the size and consequence of the decision. National school closures objectively insinuate disastrous consequences, and Johnson described it as “a nightmare thing to do”. He, and his cabinet, understood the impact the decision would have, but still made it, believing there was no alternative, viable option to prevent the spread of the ravaging disease. He phrased it as “children paying a huge price to protect the rest of society” - strong words, yet, interestingly, it seems the British public would agree with him.

‍

A 2025 YouGov survey, which assessed opinions of the British public five years on from the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic,  saw 67% agree that the government was correct in limiting students' access to universities and moving lessons online’, with only 20% saying no. As well as this, 66% agreed with their choice of ‘Closing schools to most pupils and moving lessons online’, with only 25% disapproving. Perhaps the most notable aspect of this majority is that 61% of these opinion-pollers had school aged children during the pandemic, evidencing their agreement even having had to grapple first-hand with the struggles of home learning.

‍

Consequently, this begs the question of whether we truly can look back and condemn the cabinet ministers for the repercussions of the closures. It seems they did what they had to - what anyone would have to - and faced strong backlash as a result.  However, the inquiries revealed that, behind-the-scenes, the approach to education during the pandemic wasn't taken with anywhere near the level of urgency or foresight you'd think. It seems the choice to close schools was a case of "it's not what was done, but the way it was done".

‍

Gavin Williamson, ex-Secretary of State for education, described the dilemma as a "rather discombobulating 24 hour sea change", and that the decision to close educational institutions was made overnight, with little to no research having been conducted into what the impacts of such a choice would be, and how to effectively prepare for maintaining education standards. The Institute for Government's report on Schools and Coronavirus exemplifies this in the fact that 'central contracts for laptops and for vouchers for free school meals [were] announced, [yet the] majority of first tranche of laptops [did] not arrive until June'. Johnson excused the abruptness of it all with "the steer I was hearing from… was to keep things open, not about closing things" - which doesn't excuse the lack of contingency planning (for the eventuality of closing schools). Reports produced by the Institute for Government exposed not only a lack of contingency planning, but a refusal to do so from the very centre of government - something which would, if adopted, likely have prevented consequences so extreme.

‍

Excerpts from the 'Impact on education and learning' section of 'Every Story Matters', a report produced by the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, illustrate the poor lived experiences for many students, parents, carers, and teachers around the UK. A Further Education teacher from England shared: 'We’d have some of them [young people] saying, ‘My Mum’s just had to drive us to a car park so we can get free Wi-Fi so I can join the session and I’m doing this from the car.’” Another teacher echoed a variation of this narrative: "Many of these children did not have enough or any digital devices in their families and the laptops supposedly being provided by the government did not ever arrive in many cases.” Evidenced here is a lack of sufficient governmental provision in ensuring all students have access to the necessary resources to learn from home effectively.

‍

However, it would be wrong to omit the reality that, in some pupils' cases, lockdown learning was effective. A parent of children aged 5, 10 and 14, from Scotland, shared that "the children were at a stage where they were already using individual iPads in school as part of their learning, so the school arranged for us to come in to pick up their individual iPads.” As well as this, a parent from England explained: "During the first lockdown my anxious teen thrived, he completed all his online lessons and even received several awards from school.” Some students even benefitted from the social isolation - “What we’d seen was a real decrease in the stress levels over young people [with difficult life experiences] when they were at home. I think, just the pressure being taken off them not to have that expectation within a formal education setting, which doesn’t particularly work for the young people.” – Social worker, England. These stories are positive, but they remain rarities, and fail to rectify the disadvantages imposed on most children and young people.

‍

Another aspect of the closures which was arguably mismanaged was the attitude towards reopening schools. As it has already been acknowledged, it appears the closures were realistically inevitable, however the government has faced criticism for schools remaining closed whilst pubs and cafes reopened. In the second round of public hearings for the pandemic, Anne Longfield, who was the children's commissioner during the pandemic, explained that children's needs were overlooked, and in future schools should be "the last [services] to close and the first to reopen".

‍

She added that the closure of schools for the majority of children and young people from March to September 2020, at a time when social interaction in other areas of society was increasing, a "terrible mistake". Even addressing the general wellbeing of children and young people: many struggled with being confined to their homes away from peers and general society. "My motivation dropped – not just for schoolwork, but for everything,” says a young person, Northern Ireland. Whether these impacts could have been mitigated by hastening the return to school is unclear, but it's probable they would've been minimised.

‍

In concluding, Johnson was right that children paid a price for the rest of society. It was a messy management of an unprecedented situation. Therefore maybe it's best for us to shake our heads, frustrated and angry with how it was handled, and the impacts, but not necessarily the decision itself - you decide.