I'm wondering a lot at the moment about the impact of COVID on education. In the UK we can make a reasonably good estimate that the average learning loss will be 5-6 months *if* this is the last lockdown... (THREAD)

This is incredibly bad. There's no equivalent to it in recent history. Probably not since WW2. And of course it will hit the most disadvantaged the hardest - I'd estimate based on early findings the difference between bottom and top decile will be a year or so of lost learning.

For primary and perhaps early secondary we can make back at least a good chunk of this lost learning through intensive catch up support; investment and perhaps some broader necessary reforms to the system. Won't be easy but it's possible.

For the current years 12 and 13 and for last year's year 13 I fear we will not be able to recover the lost ground. There isn't the time. And while unis/colleges should be supported to do catch-up learning it's not what they're designed to do.

And of course many young people leave the system at 18. I think there may some ways to help these cohorts - perhaps some kind of lifelong entitlement to education? But there will be irreparable loss.

As a believer in education for it's own sake, as something that enriches our lives, this is upsetting. But there's another question - what impact will it have on the economy? (Second order for me but still important).

We have a lot of studies that show higher levels of education lead to higher wages. There is a positive impact. But these studies tend to use qualifications as a proxy for education and so it might be that the signalling effect of the qualification is what actually = more money.

These year groups are actually going to have (on paper) *better* qualifications as grades are being awarded more generously to help manage the absence of proper exams. And more people will go to higher ranked unis as a result. So we have an unusual natural experiment.

Will these cohorts earn less than those before them because they've had less actual education? Or more because they have better qualifications? Or will it actually make no difference? I genuinely have no idea.

The only vaguely relevant paper I know of is a study of 1968 in France when their A-level equivalent was cancelled and more people went to uni than normal. That led to an increase in wages for that cohort. But they hadn't had learning loss https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/1504/vive-la-revolution-long-term-returns-of-1968-to-the-angry-students

Anyway I think we're going to learn a lot about the real economic benefits of signaling vs education.

Lol I hadn't see this when I wrote that thread. Will be very interested to see that analysis given the above on signalling vs education.