The dominant narrative of the educational results of the pandemic focuses on what was lost, and on what governments failed to do and should do going forward. This narrative is not inaccurate, but it is incomplete in two ways. First, it ignores the many flaws of education systems prior to the pandemic. Second, it reflects and reinforces a top-down view of the process of educational change resulting from the agency of governments. This narrative blinds us to the collective efforts that involve other actors besides governments, local actors and translational actors, public actors, and civil society and to the necessity of not just restoring the levels of functioning of education systems to their pre-pandemic levels but to transform them. This narrative is counterproductive because it limits our thinking about how to address the obvious educational losses created by the pandemic. A more capacious narrative can help us see possibilities in the agency of other actors and can animate the collective leadership necessary for the bold transformations in education which is needed to build a more just and sustainable world.
The pandemic of Covid-19 was the most significant shock to education systems globally since public education was first ‘invented’ as one of the institutions of the enlightenment (along with public research universities and with democracy). This shock interrupted learning opportunities for most children, in many cases during a very protracted period. There is reason to be concerned about the long-term consequences of such educational losses because they will diminish the life opportunities for individuals and their ability to contribute to their communities. If is for this reason that efforts to recover such education loss are crucial.
However, just as important, are the efforts exerted during the pandemic by educators, communities, organizations of civil society, governments, and international organizations to sustain educational opportunity, and the efforts they continue to exert to recover opportunity in the face of the grave challenges created by the pandemic. These efforts created and deepened new and significant forms of collaboration and of educational innovation, among teachers, among organizations of civil society and government agencies, and among international organizations.
In some respects, the crisis created by the pandemic brought the whole world together to try to sustain the powerful idea, universally adopted in the wake of another global tragedy World War II, that all people have a right to be educated. Paradoxically, a plague that brought about much loss in educational opportunity, also renewed the hope that education was the cornerstone to build a more just and sustainable world and reminded us that the global education movement to advance education comprises not just governments, but local and translational actors, teachers, students and communities, and that the process of educational change depends not just on top down government initiatives, but on bottom up innovation and on lateral collaborative initiatives.
The effects of the pandemic on education
In March 2020, soon after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, education authorities and administrators were surveyed in a cross-national survey inquiring about the anticipated effects of the pandemic. Most respondents acknowledged that the plans were insufficient and anticipated great difficulty in continuing to educate for as long as in person instruction was interrupted.[1] Furthermore, respondents foresaw increased educational inequality as the result of the differential effectiveness with which the plans to educate during the pandemic would be reaching poor and socially marginalized children. The survey revealed that few education authorities had, at that moment, a coherent education strategy (or any strategy for that matter) for how to educate during the pandemic. These early predictions proved, for the most part, accurate.
The pandemic produced the worst educational calamity in the history of public education. With schools closed, the ways in which students knew to learn and teachers knew to teach were interrupted, and the alternative arrangements which were made to teach during that period were, in many cases, improvisational and of varying effectiveness. School closures translated into students not learning what was expected they would be learning, and some students regressed, sliding back in some of the competencies they had already gained prior to the closures.[2] The deficient arrangements to sustain student engagement led some of them to drop out. Estimates of the likely impact of the pandemic on secondary graduation rates in seventeen Latin American countries indicate that only 32% of children will be able to complete secondary school, down from 52% before the pandemic, a decline that brings those graduation rates to levels of the 1980s.[3]
Learning loss, lost opportunity to learn and dropout rates were greater for the most marginalized children not just because the arrangements made to educate them were less effective, but because their families were less able to compensate for such shortcomings with additional supports in the form of parental help or additional tutoring. The interruption of schools also interrupted the distribution of school meals and other psychosocial services, affecting marginalized students disproportionately. In addition, the pandemic impacted the poor through other channels – creating income and food insecurity, for instance – or exposing the children of the poor to greater violence at home and in communities, and this compounded the unequal effects of school closures, further increasing inequality.
In the summer of 2020, Save the Children conducted a survey of children and families in 46 countries to examine the impact of the crisis, focusing on participants in their programs, other populations of interest, and the public. The report of the findings for program participants –which include predominantly vulnerable children and families – documents violence at home, reported in one third of the households. Children also reported an increase in household chores assigned to them, 63% for girls and 43% for boys, and 20% of the girls said their chores were too many to be able to devote time to their studies, compared to 10% of boys.[4]
It was not just the deficient approaches to educate during the pandemic, and the compounding effects of the pandemic on income and health that limited the educational opportunities of poor children, it was also the differences in the responses of the various educational streams into which students of various social strata are sorted out, with poor children often segregated into schools of low quality, that magnified the losses for the children of the poor. Furthermore, the educational responses of governments around the world to the pandemic varied widely, with some governments prioritizing education and school openings, while others kept schools closed for much longer periods of time. These differences persisted over time as some governments eventually implemented programs to support teachers and students in teaching remotely, or to help students recover learning loss, whereas others did not. These differences reflected policy choices, levels of institutional capacity and contextual differences resulting from varying levels of resources and infrastructure, for instance percentage of the population vaccinated.[5]
Weaker health infrastructure and other resource and capacity constrains in lower income countries, including limitations in the ability to procure and distribute vaccines, compounded the impact of the pandemic on populations in those countries and in this way aggravated the educational impact as well. As was the case in other spheres such as public health and economic participation, the global education recovery from the pandemic was a two-track process. In high income countries schools reopened earlier and students experienced relatively lower losses in education because the strategies of remote learning were more effective. In contrast, in lower income countries, which experienced longer school closures and where the strategies of remote education were least effective, interruption of schooling continued for extended periods for many students.[6]
Four UNESCO-UNICEF-World Bank-OECD cross-national surveys carried out between 2020 and 2022 revealed considerable differences in the country education responses by level of income of the country and by world region. In the first two years since the outbreak of the pandemic schools were closed, on average, 20 weeks, but school closures were much longer in South Asia (35 weeks) and Latin America (37 weeks).[7]
These differences between the disruption that the pandemic caused to educational opportunity in the Global North and the Global South, mirror the differences in addressing the public health crisis, and in the prospects of social and economic recovery. As a result, students in the Global South experienced the combined effects of the disruption on their schools, on their health systems, economies, and home circumstances. In addition, education systems in the Global South were already experiencing more serious education challenges of access, low effectiveness, and relevance, while their education systems experienced greater funding gaps. The resulting interactions of these various processes place educational opportunity in the Global South at serious risk of suffering the most significant setback in history. A simulation of the impact of a full year of learning loss estimated it as a 7.7% decline in discounted GDP.[8] The World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF estimated the cost of the education disruption as a $17 trillion dollars in lost lifetime earnings in present value over time for the current generation of students, or 14 percent of today’s GDP.[9]
A comparative study of the educational effects of the pandemic in Brazil, Chile, Finland, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, and the United States concludes that the education losses were the result of impacts of the pandemic on poverty and household conditions, as well as the result of insufficient capacity of remote instruction to adequately sustain opportunity to learn. The study shows different educational consequences of the pandemic by country and social class. The mechanisms through which the pandemic influenced educational opportunity, augmenting inequality, included both the responses of the education system as well as the direct health and economic impact of the pandemic on students, teachers, families, and communities. The main direct pathway limiting education comprised the interruption of in-person instruction, the duration of such interruption, and the adoption of a variety of education modalities during the period of suspension of in person schooling of varied efficacy. A secondary direct pathway included the constrains on education spending caused by the reduced fiscal space resulting from the unforeseen need to finance the health and economic response to address the health crisis. This finding is congruent with a recent cross-national study which documents that the pandemic diminished levels of education spending, particularly in low and lower middle-income countries.[10] Other pathways influencing students, their families and teachers directly included the impact on health as well as the impact of the pandemic on income.
This comparative study showed also that education systems were in varying stages of readiness to sustain educational opportunity in the face of the disruptions caused by the pandemic. Those differences included access to connectivity at home and skills to learn and teach online, as well as level of resources, capacities, and institutional structures to meet gaps during the emergency. Similar gaps were observed in teacher capacity. Institutional fragmentation and school segregation contributed to augmenting inequality.
This comparative study and other studies of the effects of the pandemic show that the story of the educational effects of the pandemic is not a single story, but a story largely mediated by nationality – as national policy choices and institutional capacity and resources shaped the duration of school closures and the effectiveness of policy responses – and by social class – as the social circumstances of students shaped the educational institutions they had access to and the support they received from parents and from their schools. The educational impact of the pandemic proved then to be a quintessential ‘Matthew effect’, a term coined by sociologist Robert Merton[11] drawing on the parable of the talents, to describe how unequal initial conditions often compound inequalities:
“For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him, that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”
— Matthew 25:24-30
In making education more unequal, the pandemic diminished the capacity of schools to be an avenue of hope for the poor that their children may have more opportunities than they did in life, and less able to disrupt the intergenerational transmission of poverty. But paradoxically, the pandemic also stimulated new thinking about education, new partnerships, and increased hope on the importance of education.
This renewed hope in education, and the innovation dividend generated during the pandemic, will become increasingly important to address the deep education crisis accelerated by Covid-19. Particularly as the idea that the pandemic will be ‘controlled’ in any absolute sense appears increasingly elusive, as new strands of the virus develop and the aspiration of ‘herd immunity’ seems one that will not materialize anytime soon. At the end of September of 2022, there were sill 444,000 new cases per day, and while the proportion of those who would turn to fatalities was much lower than had been the case earlier during the pandemic’s course, over 1,000 were dying each day.[12]
Beyond learning loss. The education silver-linings of the pandemic.
It should not be surprising that the pandemic produced an educational calamity, arguably the worst crisis in the history of public education. After all, shocks such as natural disasters or wars typically interrupt the functioning of schools and the lives of students, negatively impacting their learning. What should really surprise us is that during a global crisis of such intensity there would be so much interest, effort, and collaboration to sustain educational opportunity. International development and civil society organizations demonstrated extraordinary leadership maintaining attention on the importance to sustain education during the crisis and offering various forms of support. These efforts made visible that the global education movement which emerged when education was included as one of the rights included in the universal declaration of human rights adopted in 1948, is a movement of collective leadership that includes governments at all levels, international governmental and non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, teachers, students and parents and that education is more of a whole of humanity effort than a government effort.
Inter alia, UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the OECD increased inter-agency coordination, resulting in four waves of surveys to monitor the government responses to the pandemic, in various policy frameworks to offer guidance to respond to the pandemic and in other forms of collaboration. These and other international development organizations launched specific COVID-19 related initiatives during the pandemic, to support governments in sustaining educational opportunity. The United Nations convened a global summit on education in September of 2022 to call for a renewed priority to education in the wake of the pandemic. At the summit, UN Secretary General António Guterres issued a vision statement calling for a deep transformation of education as an urgent political imperative of our collective future. He underscored the crisis of education represented in the large number of children excluded from education and in the lack of relevance of education, challenges aggravated by the pandemic, and called for reimagining and transforming education so that individuals would be empowered to build a more just, sustainable, resilient, and peaceful future.[13]
These themes echoed those of Reimagining Our Futures Together. A New Social Contract for Education the report of UNESCO’s international commission on the futures of education, chaired by Ethiopia’s president Sahle-Work Zewde and written during the pandemic. This report calls for a new social contract of education which guarantees each person a quality education throughout life, and for a bold reimagining of the culture of education transforming curriculum, pedagogy, the teaching profession, the organization of educational institutions and the ecosystem of organizations that support lifelong learning. To achieve such transformation, the report proposed four catalytic actions: broad and inclusive societal dialogue that would empower each person as a changemaker, more educational research and innovation, greater involvement of universities with the rest of the educational eco-system, and a reimagined international cooperation architecture.[14]
Similarly, national, and international civil society organizations as well as businesses, marshalled resources, and innovations to support education. Governments, at the local, state, and national level, advanced novel ways to sustain education. The latest interagency report documenting governments’ responses to the pandemic based on responses collected between May and July of 2022 shows both decisive steps in sustaining education and heterogeneity in governments’ responses. For instance, half of the countries took special measures to re-enroll all students in school, such as automatic re-enrollment, mobilization campaigns, and cash transfers for poor families. Most countries implemented programs to provide support to students affected by the pandemic. Over four in five countries implemented programs of teacher professional development to support remote instruction. About 70 percent of the countries continued programs to assess student learning, but less than half conducted studies of the impact of closures on learning outcomes, and only half of those assessed non-cognitive skills. Half of the countries re-prioritized curriculum to help students recover learning loss. About two thirds of the countries implemented programs to provide psychosocial and mental health support to students.[15]
The educational impact of the pandemic should thus be evaluated not just with respect to the counterfactual of a world in which Covid-19 would not have infected 613 million people and taken the lives of 6.5 million, as it had up until the end of September of 2022, but also against a counterfactual in which education could have been ignored until the health crisis could be brought under control. The fact that education was not ignored, that it was in fact one of the top priorities of educators, education authorities, governments, and societies, speaks to the normalization of the idea that education is indeed a human right and to the crystallization of the global education movement.
It is also misguided to estimate the educational effects of the pandemic by reference to some standard of education before the pandemic because educational opportunity before the pandemic was barely adequate, too many children failed to learn, and too many learned knowledge and skills of little consequence to improve their lives or their communities.[16] It is therefore necessary to keep in mind, in assessing the educational impact of the pandemic, that such impact happened to education systems which were, in many ways, failing students, not only in the low levels of efficacy of schools in instructing the basic literacies of reading and math, but their low levels of relevancy in defining too narrowly the outcomes of schools and in failing to educate the whole child, addressing cognitive as well as socio-emotional dimensions of development.
Paradoxically, in disrupting the functioning of schools and education systems, in upending the rules that ordinarily govern such institutions, the pandemic created the occasion for new and different ways of teaching and learning, as well as novel forms of organization and collaboration which resulted in pedagogical and curricular innovations. While these efforts were insufficient to prevent the educational effects which have been documented, these ‘positive outliers’ these programmatic and policy interventions to educate during the challenging context created by the pandemic, are of interest because of what they can teach us about the capacity of educational institutions to innovate during extremely challenging contexts and because they represent potential solutions to pre-existing deficiencies of the education system, contributing to more ambitious aspirations to transform education.
The pandemic represented a significant disruption, of unprecedented scale, which tested the organizational resiliency of education and upended many of the bureaucratic norms that govern education systems. Such disruption of education systems created a rare event in which the normal boundaries, constrains and roles that regulate the behavior of individuals in education organizations were suspended, in this way freeing the practices and interactions among educational actors and institutions allowing new forms of collaboration leading to novel ways to teach and learn. Even as the pandemic created other, new, constraints and challenges – resulting for example from the social distancing norms instituted by public health authorities to contain the velocity of the spread of the virus, or from inadequate resources or infrastructure to rapidly shift to digital platforms – it was precisely the existence of those new challenges and constrains, together with the temporary freedoms, which created the occasion for educational innovation.
Recognizing this innovation dividend of the pandemic is essential because recovering from the pandemic will require not that we find a way to bring education systems to their levels of pre-pandemic functioning, but to greater levels of effectiveness and relevance and this education renaissance will require innovation.
During the period between April 2020 and June 2021, my colleagues in the Global Education Innovation initiative and I, in partnership with colleagues in several international education institutions, conducted a series of studies of such innovation dividend.
The first was an effort to document emerging efforts of education continuity during the early phase of school closures, beginning in April of 2020. Between April and July 2020, we wrote 45 case studies of innovations to sustain educational continuity. Our approach was inspired in some of the basic tenets of appreciative inquiry, an approach to action research and organizational change that consists of identifying and leveraging areas of strengths in organizations, to support further improvement.[17]
The 45 case studies covered education responses to the crisis in thirty-four countries, efforts from municipal, state, and national governments, from school networks, from private and public institutions. The countries we covered varied in terms of resource level, infrastructure, size, and other characteristics. They included: Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Finland, France, Ghana, India, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russia, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Spain, Taipei, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Vietnam, and Zambia.[18]
The case studies included initiatives such as using radio, printed materials, educational television, and a variety of digital platforms, with and without internet, to sustain educational opportunity. They also included initiatives to develop the capacities of teachers to teach remotely, and to support parents as they supported the education of children at home. Some of them focused on novel ways to assess student knowledge remotely.
The 45 innovations focused on a range of educational outcomes, from maintaining students’ engagement with learning – in activities of review of previously covered material – to covering new content in academic subjects, to supporting the well-being and socio-emotional development of students.
Most of these cases address competencies beyond cognition, recognizing perhaps the salience of socio-emotional well-being during the crisis, and the foundational nature of attending to such well-being before any other form of learning could be productive. Among the conditions which enabled the innovations examined in these cases were preexisting networks across schools, and in some cases across schools in different countries.
The cases also illustrate the power of collaboration, as the innovations involved, in many cases, the collaboration among teachers, and other stakeholders: members of the community, civil society organizations, and the private sector. To some extent the case studies illustrate collective leadership, in which various stakeholders come together to collaborate for the purpose of improving the performance of the education system.
Such was the case, for instance, in the State of Sao Paulo in Brazil which developed in a matter of weeks a multi-media center, which delivered education content via TV, radio, an app and printed materials, to sustain educational continuity during the period of school closures because of establishing partnerships with private providers and organizations of civil society. Of particular interest is the fact that this invitation to share leadership and responsibility extended by the State Ministry of Education to some of the most influential business leaders in the State, was followed by donations of services from telecommunication and education companies, which allowed the creation of the center, amounting to 0.6% of the annual education budget of the State. Several different organizations collaborated in providing access to various elements of the education platform to students, for example, police officers visited the homes of the most marginalized students to deliver printed materials, and donated cloud computing time to host the technology platform.
Many of the cases involve using digital platforms to support teacher collaboration among teachers and administrators, within and across schools, and of education resource digital networks, in sharing practices they had found effective in teaching remotely, and in problem solving together. While there is nothing novel in the creation of professional learning communities or in shared repositories of education resources, the pandemic immersed teachers in the use of digital platforms to teach and to participate in such professional learning communities.
Between June and December of 2021, we conducted a second study of 31 educational innovations generated during the pandemic, this time examining to what extent those innovations aligned with the recommendations of UNESCO’s most recent report on the Futures of Education. Our intent was to examine whether the context of disruption created by the pandemic had allowed innovations dividend aligned with transformational aspirations.[19]
These thirty-one case studies of innovations focused on innovations to support learning from home. Some of them involved multimedia platforms or other technological platforms to support students, teachers and parents, others focused particularly on socio-emotional wellbeing and development of students, or in helping teachers develop new skills, to engage students, to provide them feedback, to design learning experiences. Most cases are multidimensional, for example including a platform to deliver digital content, but also support for teachers to develop digital pedagogies. A number of these innovations focused on developing student competencies providing them more agency over their learning.
These case studies shared several distinctive elements. They all supported student center learning, socio-emotional development and wellbeing, teacher and principal professional development and family engagement in schoolwork.
Sustaining Hope in Education
The COVID-19 pandemic created an education crisis which robbed many students of the opportunities to learn what they were expected to and caused them to lose skills they had already gained, pushing some students out of school. These losses were unequally distributed among different students and education systems and, as a result, if they are not reversed, the outcome of the pandemic will be increased educational inequality, from which economic and social inequality will follow.
Paradoxically, the Education crisis created by Covid-19 also made evident that education is our best hope to support humanity in building a better and sustainable future at a time when this could not be more necessary. Three resources will be critical to sustain those efforts: 1) societal commitment to educational transformation as well as the institutional support and the financial resources to fund them, 2) collective leadership, and 3) educational innovation because, drawing on Albert Einstein’s discussion of the dangers of atomic weapons “a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels”.[20] For all it took away, the pandemic may well have unleashed these three resources in abundance.
References
Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D., and Stavros, J. Appreciative Inquiry Handbook for Leaders of Change. Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing, Inc. 2004.
Donnelly, R., & Patrinos, H. “Learning loss during COVID-19: An early systematic review”. Covid Economics, 77 (30 April 2021), 145-153.
Einstein, A. quoted in the New York Times (25 May 1946): ATOMIC EDUCATION URGED BY EINSTEIN; Scientist in Plea for $200,000 to Promote New Type of Essential Thinking. Accessed July 26, 2021.
Guterres, A. Transforming Education. An urgent political imperative for our collective future. Vision Statement of the UN Secretary General at The Education Summit September 19, 2022
Merton, Robert K. “The Matthew Effect in Science”, Science. 159 (3810): 56-63. 1968.
Neidhofer, G., N. Lustig and M. Tommasi “Intergenerational transmission of lockdown consequences: prognosis of the longer-run persistence of Covid-19 in Latin America”. The Journal of Economic Inequality. July 2021.
Reimers, F. (Ed.) Primary and Secondary Education during COVID-19. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 2021.
Reimers, F. and Opertti, R. (Eds.) Learning to Build Back Better Futures for Education. Lessons from educational innovations during the COVID-19 Pandemic. UNESCO. International Bureau of Education. Geneva: International Bureau of Education. 2021.
Reimers, F. and Schleicher, A. A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. OECD. 2020a.
Reimers, F. and Schleicher, A. Schooling disrupted, schooling rethought: How the COVID-19 Pandemic is changing education. OECD. 2020b.
Ritz, D., O’Hare, G., & Burgess, M. The hidden impact of COVID-19 on child protection and wellbeing. Washington DC: Save the Children International. 2020.
United Nations. 2020. United Nations Comprehensive Response to COVID-19: Saving Lives, Protecting Societies, Recovering Better.
UNESCO. Reimagining Our Futures Together. A New Social Contract of Education. A Report of the International Commission on the Futures of Education. Paris: UNESCO. 2021.
UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank. The State of the Global Education Crisis: A Path to Recovery. Washington, DC: the World Bank. December 2021.
UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Bank and OECD. From Learning Recovery to Education Transformation. Insights and reflections from the 4th survey on national education responses to COVID-19 School Closures. Paris: UNESCO. 2022.
Vincent-Lancrin, S., Cobo, C. and Reimers, F. How learning continued during the COVID-19 pandemic. Paris: OECD. 2022
World Bank. World Development Report 2018. Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. Washington, DC. 2018.
World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus Dashboard accessed September 28, 2022
[1] Fernando Reimers and Andreas Schleicher, A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020 (Paris: OECD. 2020a).
[2]Robin Donnelly and Harry Patrinos, “Learning loss during COVID-19: An early systematic review”. Covid Economics, 77 (30 April 2021), 145-153.
[3] Guido Neidhofer, Nora Lustig and Mariano Tommasi, “Intergenerational transmission of lockdown consequences: prognosis of the longer-run persistence of Covid-19 in Latin America”. The Journal of Economic Inequality. July 2021.
[4] Daniela Ritz, Georgina O’Hare & Melissa Burgess, The hidden impact of COVID-19 on child protection and wellbeing (Washington DC: Save the Children International, 2020).
[5] Fernando Reimers (Ed.), Primary and Secondary Education during COVID-19 (Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 2021).
[6] Reimers (Ed.), Primary and Secondary Education during COVID-19.
[7] UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Bank and OECD. From Learning Recovery to Education Transformation. Insights and reflections from the 4th survey on national education responses to COVID-19 School Closures (Paris: UNESCO. 2022), 7.
[8] Eric A. Hanushek & Ludger Woessmann, The economic impact of learning losses. Education Working Papers, No 225. OECD Publishing (September 2020).
[9] UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank. The State of the Global Education Crisis: A Path to Recovery (Washington, DC: the World Bank. December 2021).
[10] UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Bank and OECD. From Learning Recovery to Education Transformation, 42
[11] Robert K. Merton, “The Matthew Effect in Science”, Science. 159 (3810): 56-63. 1968.
[12] World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus Dashboard accessed September 28, 2022.
[13] António Guterres, Transforming Education. An urgent political imperative for our collective future. Vision Statement of the UN Secretary General at The Education Summit September 19, 2022, 1-2.
[14] UNESCO. Reimagining Our Futures Together. A New Social Contract of Education. A Report of the International Commission on the Futures of Education (Paris: UNESCO. 2021).
[15] UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Bank and OECD. From Learning Recovery to Education Transformation. Insights and reflections from the 4th survey on national education responses to COVID-19 School Closures (Paris: UNESCO. 2022).
[16] World Bank, World Development Report 2018. Learning to Realize Education’s Promise (Washington, DC. 2018.)
[17] David L. Cooperrider, Diana Whitney, D. and Jacqueline M. Stavros, Appreciative Inquiry Handbook for Leaders of Change (Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing, Inc. 2004).
[18] Stephan Vincent-Lancrin, Cristobal Cobo and Fernando Reimers, How learning continued during the COVID-19 pandemic (Paris: OECD. 2022).
[19] Fernando Reimers and Renato Opertti (Eds.) Learning to Build Back Better Futures for Education. Lessons from educational innovations during the COVID-19 Pandemic (Geneva: UNESCO. International Bureau of Education. 2021).
[20] Einstein, A. quoted in the New York Times (25 May 1946): ATOMIC EDUCATION URGED BY EINSTEIN; Scientist in Plea for $200,000 to Promote New Type of Essential Thinking. https://www.nytimes.com/1946/05/25/archives/atomic-education-urged-by-einstein-scientist-in-plea-for-200000-to.html Accessed July 26, 2021.