Oecd covid survey eag indd

particular school in which a COVID-19 case was 
declared organised a temporary transition from offline 
learning to distance learning.
In six other countries (Brazil, Finland, Germany, 
Lithuania, Norway and Sweden), schools, districts 
or the most local level of governance could take 
decisions on school closures at their own discretion. 
In Finland, for example, according to the provisional 
Basic Education Act (valid until 31 July 2021), 
local authorities could decide independently to 
move towards distance education on the basis of 
recommendations made by the regional authority for a 
given area. In Germany, the municipal health authority 
decides which mitigation measures to implement, 
including isolation of infected cases or closing classes 
or schools. In Norway, the head teacher and the 
municipality decide whether to close the school or 
quarantine those who have been in close contact with 
infected pupils or staff. In 17 of the remaining countries, 
school based contact tracing is carried out (i.e. COVID 
testing of students and staff), which may or may not be 
followed by school or classroom closure. 
Despite this trend, the criteria and duration of class 
closures vary between these countries. In the
Czech Republic, for example, if a positive case 
is detected before classes start, only the infected 
individual is quarantined. If the case is detected 
later in the week, the class is closed (all students are 
quarantined) and switch to distance learning.
In France, primary and secondary classes are 
closed for seven days when a case of COVID-19 is 
confirmed. In Costa Rica, classrooms with COVID-19 
cases are closed for 24 hours, are thoroughly 
disinfected, and only students or staff suspected or 
confirmed for COVID-19 are isolated for 10 days. 
In England (United Kingdom), if 2 or more confirmed 
cases are declared within 14 days of school, or there 
is an increase in sick leave with suspicion of COVID-19 
infection, the local health protection team is informed, 
which advises if any additional action is required. 
0
10
20
30
40
School closure/reopening
Sanitary measures to reopen schools
Resources to be made available to continue students'
learning during school closure
Remedial programmes (if applicable)
Number of countries
Central government in full autonomy
Subnational authority or individual schools with frameworks from central government
Subnational authority or individual schools in full autonomy
Consultation across multiple levels or parties
Others
Not applicable
Figure 4•
Decision making on school closure and reopening due to COVID-19 (2020)
In public lower secondary education
Notes: 
Central government in full autonomy includes decisions taken by the central education authority in consultation or
recommended by the central level health authority. Subnational authority includes state governments, provincial/regional
authorities, sub-regional/municipal authorities. Others indicates cases where classification into given categories is not possible or 
the information is insufficient to classify.
Source: 
OECD/UIS/UNESCO/UNICEF/WB (2021
[1]
).

---

14
© OECD 2021
The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
Finally, in Turkey, if a student is diagnosed with 
COVID-19, students in the same class are considered 
to be close contacts and will only be allowed to return 
to school wearing a mask according to the national 
guidelines. If more than one case occurs in the same 
class within 14 days, all of the students in that class are 
considered close contacts and sent home to isolate for 
14 days.
Distance learning during school closures often took place on a daily 
basis, with a hybrid approach involving a mix of asynchronous and 
synchronous online learning
As schools shut down, new arrangements were made 
to ensure learning continuity. The organisation of 
distance learning was often decided at the local level, 
to ensure rapid and targeted action for schools amidst 
the uncertainty of the pandemic. 
Data from the Special Survey on COVID-19 show 
that flexible and collaborative arrangements across 
multiple levels of government allowed the smooth 
roll-out of resources made available for students 
and for distance education during school closures. 
Decisions on the resources available during school 
closures were usually taken at a more local level and 
in collaboration with or in consultation across multiple 
levels. Only in 8 countries were these decisions taken 
in full autonomy by the central level (4 countries), state 
level (2 countries) or provincial level (2 countries). In 
about 40% of countries, these decisions were taken 
by multiple levels of government. For example, in 
Colombia, the central government defined the main 
resources to be transferred to sub-regional authorities. 
However, some local or sub-regional authorities with 
resources also were able to take decisions on the 
resources to be made available during school closures 
(Figure 4).
With school closures often implemented at short 
notice to respond to the rapidly changing situation, 
countries sought to bridge gaps in education coverage 
by building on existing digital tools or developing 
new ones. Responses from the Special Survey on 
COVID-19 show consistent patterns across countries: 
online platforms were prioritised across levels of 
education, most clearly at the secondary level. Mobile 
phones were more common at the secondary level 
and radio at the upper secondary level. At the same 
time, take-home packages, television or radio were 
reported with similar frequency at both primary and 
secondary levels of education and other
distance-learning solutions were more commonly 
reported at the primary level (OECD, 2021
[4]
). 
Countries have therefore managed, during this crisis, 
to develop a range of tools to provide distance 
education to students during school closures.
It is therefore not surprising that 74% of them report that 
primary and secondary schools were virtually open 
(i.e. every day of face-to-face schooling was provided 
remotely during school closure periods) when schools 
were first closed at the onset of the crisis in 2020. 
However, remote learning is not always considered a 
substitute for a full day of instruction in the classroom. 
For example, six countries (Austria, Costa Rica, Israel 
[for only few primary schools], Mexico, Portugal and 
Turkey) reported that distance education strategies did 
not compensate for each day of in-person teaching 
lost during school closures. Finally, of the
33 countries with data, only the Czech Republic did 
not provide distance education to pupils during the first 
period of school closure in 2020. However, for the 
second closure in autumn 2020 and the first closure 
in 2021, the amendment to the Czech Republic's 
Education Act implemented the obligation for pupils to 
attend distance education in primary and secondary 
education and at pre-primary level (only for pupils in 
the last compulsory pre-school year).
While the availability of digital tools for remote 
learning is generally widespread across most
OECD countries, the overall quality of distance 
education and the way it operates has been a matter 
of debate in many countries. Results from the Special 
Survey on COVID-19 show that primary and lower 
secondary schools in two thirds of the countries were 
autonomous in setting up and implementing strategies 
for distance education. While autonomy may allow 
for greater agility to address specific learning gaps 
or to tailor remote learning strategies to students’ level 
of access and digital skills, the quality of the strategies 
implemented may differ, thereby exacerbating 
inequalities across schools. Ten countries and 
economies (Austria, Costa Rica,
England [United Kingdom], France, Hungary, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Slovenia and Turkey) 
reported using a hybrid approach, including a 
mix of asynchronous learning (i.e. learning through 
online channels without real-time interaction with 
other students or teachers, at one's own pace) and 
synchronous online learning (i.e. real-time with 
interaction such as Zoom/Skype classes) and no 
country reported using exclusively one or the other 

---

© OECD 2021 
15
The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
model at primary or lower secondary levels of 
education.
Despite this trend, the modalities used for hybrid 
learning differ between countries. Korea, for example, 
incorporated different types of distance learning, 
including two-way live courses (synchronous learning), 
content-based courses, homework-based courses, 
courses combining two or more of these methods, 
etc. In France, online platforms often operated in two 
different but complementary and articulated ways:
at the national level, the National Centre for Distance 
Learning (Centre national d'enseignement à distance, 
CNED) provided access to educational resources and 
virtual classes (Ma Classe à la Maison) while at the 
local level, other platforms were also used.
In Luxembourg, synchronous learning took place to a 
varied extent and was adapted to the age of children. 
There were also a number of tutorials, teaching 
videos and other online learning materials, as well 
as training courses for teachers on how to develop 
such asynchronous learning offers. Blended learning 
opportunities (i.e. an approach that combines online 
educational materials and opportunities for interaction 
on line with traditional place-based classroom 
methods) have also been developed, but these are 
early attempts and still often rely on individual teachers’ 
initiatives.

---

16
© OECD 2021
2
Early childhood education and care: 
Managing the crisis when social distancing 
and distance education are more complex 
to implement
In about two-thirds of countries with data, there was no evident policy 
to reduce the duration of school closures at pre-primary compared to 
primary level in 2020
Countries around the world have implemented 
unprecedented containment measures to control the 
spread of COVID-19, including the closure of schools. 
While all levels of education shut down their premises 
during the first months of the outbreak in 2020,
pre-primary schools were generally closed for shorter 
periods of time on average. On average across 
OECD countries, pre-primary schools were fully closed 
44 days in 2020, compared to 58 at primary level 
and 65 for lower secondary general programmes. 
There are, however, significant differences across 
countries: in Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico, 
pre-primary schools closed for 140 days or more in 
2020. In contrast, they could remain open throughout 
the year in Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, 
Finland, Hungary, Japan, Latvia and Sweden, even 
though in some countries such as Finland, families were 
urged to keep their children home if possible during 
the second quarter of 2020. Similar to other levels of 
education, municipalities in many countries still offered 
emergency care to disadvantaged and vulnerable 
children during periods of full school closure.
In about two-thirds of countries with data, there was no 
evident policy to reduce the duration of school closures 
at pre primary compared to primary level in 2020. In 
about a third of the countries with data, the duration of 
pre-primary school closures was the same as at lower 
secondary level. In Poland and Turkey, pre-schools 
closed for less than half the number of days as primary 
schools, and in Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, 
Finland, Hungary and Latvia, pre-primary was the only 
level of education to have not closed at all in 2020. 
Germany, Ireland and Slovenia are the only countries 
with data where pre-primary schools remained closed 
longer than primary schools, for 10 days more or less 
(Figure 5). However, different school holiday schedules 
may also explain variations in the number of instruction 
days that schools were fully closed across levels of 
education. For example, in Germany, pre-primary 
schools remained open during the spring holidays 
when primary and secondary schools are typically 
closed, explaining the higher number of instruction 
days when schools were fully closed at pre-primary 
compared to primary level.

---

© OECD 2021 
17
The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
Pre-primary education
Primary education
Number of days
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Br
az
il
C
os
ta
R
ic
a
C
ol
om
bi
a¹
M
ex
ic
o
Sl
ov
en
ia
G
re
ec
e
Ire
la
nd
C
hi
le
¹
Ita
ly
¹
Ko
re
a
Sl
ov
ak
R
ep
ub
lic
¹
Tu
rk
ey
Lit
hu
an
ia
Sp
ai
n
Po
rtu
ga
l
O
EC
D
a
ve
ra
ge
Be
lg
iu
m
Ru
ss
ia
n 
Fe
de
ra
tio
n
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Is
ra
el
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Po
la
nd
²
Sw
itz
er
la
nd
En
gl
an
d 
(U
K)
Fr
an
ce
G
er
m
an
y¹
³
N
ew
Z
ea
la
nd
¹
N
or
w
ay
D
en
m
ar
k²
A
us
tri
a
C
ze
ch
R
ep
ub
lic
Es
to
ni
a¹
Fi
nl
an
d
H
un
ga
ry
La
tv
ia
²
Sw
ed
en
,
Figure 5•
Number of instruction days pre-primary and primary schools were fully closed in 2020