The impact of COVID-19 on the learning and achievement of vulnerable Canadian children and youth

We conceptualize vulnerability as existing in the interactions between the circumstances, resources, and capacities of a child and their family and environment. Vulnerable children are influenced by deterimental social, economic, and (or) educational factors (Eloff et al. 2007). They have an increased likelihood of being harmed or experiencing more severe harm than other children (Schweiger 2019). The COVID-specific literature typically defines vulnerability through environmental and social indicators such as economic hardship, housing stress, and lack of access to materials and infrastructures (Herrenkohl et al. 2021; Drane et al. 2020; Masters et al. 2020). Often contrasted with resilience (Boyce and Kobor 2015), vulnerability places children at risk for difficulties in withstanding significant change or disruption, such as altered social networks, reduced educational support, or increased family stress (Prime et al. 2020).

Child adjustment is reciprocally related to the experiences and challenges of parents and other family members. Disruptions to family health and well-being, such as history of trauma, special needs, chronic health conditions, and family relational dysfunction, can sometimes place children in situations of vulnerability, especially when necessary supports and resources are not in place (Wilke et al. 2020). According to Prime et al. (2020) “…links between hardship, caregiver well-being, family well-being, and children’s adjustment are not unidirectional; rather, the links operate within a mutually reinforcing system, whereby stress and disruptiveness in one domain begets the same in another” (p. 632). Adverse effects of the pandemic on parents and families can impact children through multiple mechanisms (McGrath et al. 2020). Children in care or families at risk of separation may need additional attention and support through the COVID-19 pandemic (Wilke et al. 2020).

Chronic exposure to racism and marginalization often intersects with and exacerbates inequities in social and health-related experiences for families (Raising Canada Report 2020; Cohen and Bosk 2020; James 2020; Prime et al. 2020). According to Canadian scholar Carl James (2020), “the pandemic has not only added to the social and educational inequities among young people, it has exacerbated the racial injustice with which racialized and Indigenous youth must contend” (2020, p. 1). Racist incidents against Asian-appearing individuals have increased during the pandemic, spurred by stigma related to the virus’s origins in the Wuhan province of China (Heidinger and Cotter 2021; Kong et al. 2021). Preliminary indications suggest that COVID-19 has deepened the negative impact of pre-existing vulnerabilities and disparities and further contributed to disenfranchisement and marginalization (Raising Canada Report 2020).

Alongside the socially and economically driven definitions of vulnerability lie the educational ones (e.g., Willms 2018). Given the school interruptions and closures associated with the pandemic, children who were already behind their peers academically and (or) who require special services and supports to succeed academically are likely to be particularly affected (Clinton 2020; Masters et al. 2020). There is also a compound effect of academic and social vulnerability in that social disadvantage is over-represented among those deemed educationally vulnerable, a pattern termed the “continuous cycle of disadvantage” (Masters et al. 2020, p. 1). For these children, reduced access to the human and material educational resources negatively impacts learning.

Other authors in the Royal Society of Canada COVID-19 series specifically address the mental health dimension of the COVID-19 pandemic (Vaillancourt et al. 2021). Although inextricably linked with mental health, the focus of this chapter is on the academic and learning-related outcomes and approaches for those most vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic and associated restrictions.

Global organizations such as UNICEF and UNESCO have raised concerns throughout the pandemic about its negative impact on child education due to school closures estimated to affect 1.5 billion students worldwide (Gustafsson 2021; UNESCO 2021). They claim that the health crisis is quickly becoming a child rights crisis as access to quality education is hindered or simply unavailable to many children worldwide. Article 28 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), on which Canada is a signatory, recognizes the right of children to education. Recent COVID-19 literature highlights concern regarding increased absenteeism, poor literacy and math outcomes, and the potential for long-term educational disengagement, drop-out, and lifelong reductions to educational and vocational attainment for students living and learning in vulnerable circumstances (Andrabi et al. 2020; Bao et al. 2020; Frenette et al. 2020; Maldonado and De Witte 2020; Engzell et al. 2021; Sabates et al. 2021).

A number of studies examining the impact of COVID-19 on academic achievement have been conducted in the United States (Dorn et al. 2020; Kuhfeld et al. 2020), Belgium (Maldonado and de Witte 2020), the Netherlands (Engzell et al. 2021; Meeter 2021), and Germany (Depping et al. 2021; Schult et al. 2021). Most of these studies compared student performance on standardized measures prior to and following the spring 2020 school lockdown and found small, significant declines, with a few studies showing greater inequity for students of colour, those with a migration background, or from families with fewer years of formal education. Canadian data are limited at this time to analyses based on historical comparisons. These reveal mixed findings, including higher teacher-assigned grades, increased secondary failure rates, and lower than expected scores on report cards and standardized literacy tests (e.g., Star Reading, Developmental Reading Assessment) for young children in Alberta and Ontario (e.g., Cook 2020; Davies and Aurini 2021; Nerestant 2021; TDSB 2021).

In considering the emerging findings on the impact of COVID-19 on academic achievement, it is important to remain cautious about an overemphasis on learning loss. Discussions about learning loss have permeated news media, policy briefs, opinion pieces, and research (Dorn et al. 2020; Ewing 2020; Engzell et al. 2021). Learning loss is typically defined as the discrepancy between the assessed academic skills and knowledge of students and grade-level curricular expectations and (or) gaps between the academic performance of some groups of students compared to others (Dorn et al. 2020; Pier et al. 2021).

Learning loss discussions are often limited in four respects. First, they suggest that children have not been learning when their schools were closed or while engaged in remote learning. In other words, learning is equated solely with academic achievement, and the skills and comprehension that children may have developed (e.g., land-based learnings) are not valued nor, by extension, measured (Deslandes-Martineau et al. 2020; Rodriguez 2021). Second, learning loss is most often defined through narrow definitions of achievement, primarily basic literacy and numeracy (e.g., Vegas 2021). The full sense of learning, including motivation, engagement, and inclusion, and the broad curricular goals of schools, is greatly reduced (Zhao 2021). Conquently, responses to presumed learning loss often include large-scale standardized testing to assess and rationalize remediation of these narrow skills. This approach often perpetuates the cycle of inequity and poor performance for students who are disengaged from schools or who do not reflect majority linguistic or cultural profiles (Campbell et al. 2018; Hargreaves 2020). Third, learning loss discussions often depict the impact of inconsistent schooling as applying equally to all students when, in fact, the negative influence is differentially experienced by those most vulnerable (Bailey et al. 2021; di Pietro et al. 2020). And fourth, the notion that learning is lost suggests that it is unlikely to be recouped. However, most skills, competencies, and knowledge related to reading and mathematics, the arts, history, and social studies can be engaged with successfully at any point in an individuals’ lifespan, albeit potentially requiring greater intensity and personalization of instruction and practice (Thompson and Steinbeis 2020; Woodard and Pollak 2020). The special education and intervention literature would dispute the notion that achievement is forever compromised if skills are not taught and learned at a fixed point in time (Marita and Hord 2017; Lovett et al. 2020; Vaillancourt et al. 2020). School curricula and standardized tests that determine the grade at which a concept or skill is introduced and evaluated are determined by the system in which students learn rather than being developmentally mandated. Some authors have suggested using the terms COVID “slide”, “slow down”, “learning disruption”, or “unfinished” learning to better reflect the effects of the pandemic on student progress (Gordon et al. 2020; Martin 2020; Rodriguez 2021). What determines whether learning or academic achievement is lost is determined by how well vulnerable students are supported and resourced during and following the pandemic.

Children with special education needs (SEN) comprise 10%–20% of total student enrollment, as many as 1 million children in Canada (Whitley 2020). Many of these children have pre-existing neurological or neurodevelopmental disabilities known to impact cognitive and academic functioning, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), learning disabilities (e.g., Dyslexia, Dyscalculia), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, or traumatic brain injury, to name a few. These students required a range of inclusive and special education services before the pandemic. Most require differentiated instruction and accommodations to be able to flourish academically. Many rely on established routines and relationships as well as professional and informal support (Toseeb et al. 2020). Some with more complex needs require a broad network of services from community organizations, health care providers, and school staff, many of which have been reduced due to pandemic restrictions (Fontanesi et al. 2020). We have adopted the term “special education needs” to reflect the heterogenous and diverse group of children and youth who require supports of some kind to be able to learn and engage with peers in schools. As such the term suggests a deficit lens, where some students require something “special”, beyond or apart from the norm; the term also situates the need within the child rather than within the environment (see Connor 2020 and Parekh and Brown 2020 for a fuller discussion). We acknowledge these tensions and the limitations of the term. Where possible, we use the original language of the source material we draw on here.

Emerging literature documents the impacts of COVID-19 on children with SEN, generally from the perspective of parents and caregivers. A qualitative study by Neece et al. (2020) in the United States examined the perspectives of 77 parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The sample was primarily Latinx, and approximately half of the children had been diagnosed with ASD. Approximately one-third of the sample reported decreases in services as a significant challenge during the pandemic. The majority of parents were primarily concerned with the obligation to stay at home to care for their child. Lack of educational and developmental progress was a potential impact noted by about 16% of parents. Other studies provide emerging evidence that the pandemic has worsened symptoms of the disorders themselves and associated comorbidities (Masi et al. 2021), such as increased conduct problems in children with ADHD and reduced prosocial behaviour in those with ASD (Nonweiler et al. 2020). Concerns have also been raised that online schooling and management of video-conferencing platforms may not be appropriate for children with pre-existing attentional or perceptual impairments (Aishworiya and Kang 2021).

During the pandemic, access to digital technologies has been a significant issue for many families. Inconsistent access to high-speed internet and sufficient digital devices is a barrier to participation in educational and service-related activities (e.g., therapies, recreational supports, respite) developed because of school closures. In a survey of almost 6000 families on Prince Edward Island, 29% were extremely or very concerned about internet service if home-based learning continued (PEI Department of Education and Lifelong Learning 2020). In Manitoba, the Winnipeg School District reported that 40% of students did not have a computer at home (Froese 2020). British Columbia school districts reported that up to 30% of families have no access to internet-enabled devices (BC Ministry of Education 2020). In recognition of the significant barrier posed by internet and device availability for vulnerable children, some governments and school boards equipped families with paid cell phones with data plans and loaned digital devices (e.g., Calgary Board of Education 2020; CBC News 2020; Samba 2020). Others funded and delivered internet-enabled smartphones to students without access (Modjeski 2020). Other schools provided school ground hotspots for students who could spend time close to the school or delivered digital and paper materials to families (e.g., Government of Northwest Territories 2020; McPhee 2021).

In 2016, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) (2016) declared that broadband internet was a vital basic service for all Canadians. However, data in 2019 revealed that 12.6% of Canadian households do not have broadband internet service and there are inequities in internet speed between rural and urban households (CRTC 2020). Even when available, high-speed and unlimited internet costs are prohibitive for many families; households in the lowest income quartile are significantly less likely to have home internet and have multiple internet-enabled devices than those in the highest quartile (Frenette et al. 2020). Federal, provincial, and territorial programs have been put in place to support some low-income families in accessing high-speed internet (Government of Canada 2019; Rogers 2021). In many rural areas of Canada, residents have described living in an “internet dead zone” or in areas where internet access is incredibly costly or unreliable, including some First Nations communities (Jabakhanji 2020; Human Rights Watch 2021). Indigenous communities and those in Northern regions are among those most disadvantaged by a lack of connectivity; as of 2018, over 50% of Nunavut households had download speeds of less than 5 Mbps. “Many residents still have trouble opening an email, let alone trying to use video-conferencing applications for personal, professional, or health reasons” (Internet Society 2019, p. 7).

The pandemic has revealed to schools and governments the needs and inequities related to technology access. This access allows children and their families to successfully navigate services, employment, education, learning, and social networks (Canadian School Boards Association and the Canadian Association of School System Administrators 2020). In some provinces and territories, parents had the choice of returning their children to school full time or continuing to receive blended or fully virtual services when schools opened again in the fall of 2020. However, many parents felt that they were forced to make difficult decisions based on their unique situations. For example, options were limited for those who had to work outside the home to provide for their families, who lacked childcare, who lived in multi-generational households with high-risk elders, whose children were immunocompromised, or who were without the internet capacity to engage in virtual learning.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the abrupt end or shift of service provision, including social, therapeutic, and recreational services, has been highlighted as a significant stressor for families and a barrier to access for children to safety, support, care, and development (Raising Canada Report 2020; Crawley et al. 2020; Neece et al. 2020; Wilke et al. 2020). Social supports include child protection services, mental health and addictions supports, and nutrition and housing programs (Herrenkohl et al. 2021; Brown et al. 2020). Global and national organizations have highlighted concerns about child protection and the increased risk of harm and neglect to children whose families are under financial, social, and mental stress and have fewer home-based support systems (e.g., Raising Canada Report 2020; Bérubé et al. 2020; UNICEF 2020).

Therapeutic services, such as those provided by allied health professionals including speech-language pathologists, behavioural therapists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, social workers, psychologists, and neuropsychologists, may also be even more critical during the pandemic for children with pre-existing conditions. “Health care professionals are warning that children will be forced to wait months or even years to access care, which will affect their growth and development” (Raising Canada 2020, p. 6). For many children, services were offered prior to the pandemic through schools and community-based organizations. The significant challenge of coordinating and offering cohesive, family-centred, appropriate, and timely services for children has been documented for decades prior to the pandemic (Law et al. 2003; Dewan and Cohen 2013; Matthews et al. 2020). Families who are not as well-resourced in terms of educational, financial, social, and cultural capital are less likely to be able to advocate for and secure sufficient services for their child(ren) and family (Casagrande and Ingersoll 2017). As with so many other areas, these challenges grew when schools closed and agencies shifted to new service delivery models. Even when schools re-opened, access to outside agencies and professionals has been reduced or prohibited due to continued pandemic-related public health restrictions.

Many examples of virtual approaches to social service delivery for children and families emerged during the pandemic, most related to supporting students with disabilities and their families and students with mental health needs (see Vaillancourt et al. 2021). Many school boards, community organizations, and hospitals arranged for secure virtual platforms to allow some students to access individual therapeutic services when needed (e.g., CASLPO 2020; Rocky View Schools 2021). The small body of existing and emerging literature shows very mixed perceptions concerning parent satisfaction of teletherapies offered to vulnerable children during COVID-19 (Battistin et al. 2021; Masi et al. 2021); studies conducted over the past decade have reported more positive experiences with some studies showing equal efficacy in outcomes for virtual or face-to-face (e.g., Hao et al. 2021). The element of choice is important to consider; during the pandemic, families were forced to access services and therapies virtually, on short notice and regardless of preferences. In the broader literature, some families prefer the convenience of virtual delivery and in rural populations, virtual offerings can increase equity and access to vital services (Fairweather et al. 2016; Barr et al. 2019; Dadds et al. 2019).