Why is it "learning loss" not "teaching loss" or "schooling failure"?

Why is the implication that the failure is on the part of the children rather than the adults?

I think this claim is that the pandemic has disrupted the normal expected schedule of education and the ingrained connection between calendar and teaching of topics. So if the calendar continues to move but teaching/learning doesn't happen that learning is "lost"

I also think there is another concern that some (wealthier, whiter) students who will continue on the pre-pandemic schedule and thus "get ahead" of others.

Education is so enamored with precociousness and the connection between common age driven metrics that we ignore the reality of individual development timelines of children.

Someone recently wrote/said "post-cocious" (as opposed to precocious) and it perfectly summarizes America and education that that word doesn't exists though it probably should.

Someone else recently tweeted the idea of a reset after the pandemic. Every student goes back to where they were march 2019. Logistics aside, that's probably logical and beneficial

Most . . . a plurality . . maybe even the majority of students in this country will have learned less of the **pre-pandemic curriculum** during the pandemic than prior to the pandemic . . . ok so what? what now? is that bad?

Are we going to continue to measure the pandemic educated students based on pre-pandemic standards (standards that weren't even standard pre-pandemic)?

if we do measure this way we will find learning loss. (and job loss, and travel loss, and life loss and teaching loss)

So learning loss is a thing. I get it. Its impact will be felt by low income and Black and Latinx most of all. As a phrase, it should be killed. Find a better phrase that better defines and highlights the issue.