Editorial

Introduction

The Covid pandemic provided a highly unusual context for researching education systems; not only in terms of how they respond to pandemics but also in regard to reshaping education post pandemic. While many research projects into education during the pandemic arguably took the former perspective, this Special Issue seeks to mine Covid-19 research to raise questions about the education system more generally, and particular in terms of how it can be changed for the better. During Covid-19, schools and other educational institutions had periods of closure when distance and online education was offered and a range of new practices were introduced to avoid contagion. These practices have made a significant difference to how institutions are run on a daily basis and have had knock-on effects, such as creating smaller groups of students known as ‘bubbles’ to reduce contact between students. Research into these kinds of changes has led to new ideas about how to tackle ongoing challenges in education such as improving the transition between primary and secondary schooling. There were also wider changes which brought into question established concepts and priorities, as well as practices; for example, the pandemic offered an opportunity to rethink the relationships between home and school, and to reconsider the role of play in children’s lives. The papers in this special issue deal with this wide range of ‘reimaginings’, each based on research in schools and early years settings during the Covid crisis.

Changes to interpersonal and home–school relationships

Relations between homes and schools were significantly altered by the events of the Covid lockdowns: communication became vital, as schools sought to distribute home learning resources in fair and effective ways, as well as maintaining regular contact with families for whom there was concern (Moss et al. 2020). Parents became teachers, while teachers took on the role of providing childcare in school for the children of key workers. Teachers saw into their children’s homes during Zoom meetings, while they had to teach from their own homes using their own resources. There were tensions between the demands placed on teachers to support families often in dire circumstances, and the demands of parents for more or different home learning opportunities. This period of significant disruption to long established home–school relations is the focus of the ‘reimagining’ of education for two papers in this collection.

Walton and Darkes-Sutcliffe consider the deep influence of neoliberalism and scientism on pedagogy and in particular, the relationships between children, parents and teachers. They argue for a new model of relationships based on the analogy of a ‘triangle of trust’ between children, parents and teachers/key persons. While their research took place in early years contexts, the findings also apply to primary schools. They argue that where in the current British neoliberal education system, the emphasis in on children’s learning contexts outside of their inner worlds, particularly their learning outputs as well as their physical health. This means that their psychological and emotional wellbeing can and is largely ignored. The relational pedagogy that underpins their triangle of trust would place children’s wellbeing centre stage because it makes ‘secure, trusting and loving’ relationships between children, their teachers/key person and parents a key aim. Such relationships not only foster good mental health but also has been shown to foster learning. While this kind of relationship arguably exists in some early years settings it is arguably uncommon in primary schools and in both contexts it would place a much stronger emphasis on children’s inner wellbeing.

Levy’s research into home–school relationships overlaps in significant ways with Walton and Darkes-Sutcliffe’s paper. Here, there is also an underlying focus on the power relationships between teachers, schools and children, and in essence the ‘triangle of trust’ model also reverses the current dominance of schools and hence teachers. In the English neo-liberal education system the nature of home–school relationships is very much a one-way practice of schools feeding information to parents to carry out certain activities at home in line with curriculum and pedagogy at school. This means that parents have very little scope to influence not only their children’s learning but also leaves them with little guidance or knowledge that their mental health and wellbeing is being is being looked after by school. In Levy’s study, the focus is upon communication practices between primary schools and home which are closely tied to the nature of power-relations between school and parents. Levy found that schools had to radically change their communication practices during Covid-19 and that the new practices made the relationships between teachers and parents much more mutual, where previously it had been one-way. Instead of schools sending information home, there were in-depth, two-way conversations. Levy argues that these new practices lead to a more genuine partnership where schools were less authoritarian and parents involved in work with practitioners on a more equal basis. This also involved teachers gaining an understanding of the school’s communities in which their children lived. From this knowledge teachers were better able to meet children’s needs as well as use their strengths.

These papers draw out the wider potential impact of learning from changes to home–school communication, and encourage schools to adopt many practices they were forced to put in place, in the longer term.

Learning from the vulnerabilities exposed by Covid

A recurring theme in these papers is the opportunity to learn from insights offered by simply ‘doing things differently’, during the Covid period. Disruption to the usual routines meant that there were chances to see how things might work in different ways, and whether this might be better. Certain vulnerabilities in the system were exposed, and alternatives tested. In Martineau and Bakopoulou’s paper, they discuss the impact on children’s mental health and wellbeing of the pandemic, through the eyes of their teachers and parents. A key finding is that there were some benefits to a ‘less pressurised schooling’, where children learnt at home or were in smaller groups at school, with respondents seeing a positive impact on behaviour, wellbeing and academic progress. This was particularly the case for some children with additional needs, echoing research on autistic children’s experiences of lockdowns (Oliver, Vincent, and Pavlopoulou 2021). They do note, however, the significant negative impacts on children’s health and wellbeing, particularly their social wellbeing. Using a Bioecological perspective, they argue that what we can learn from the pandemic, is that more time is needed for non-academic activity and interest-led learning, through a restructuring of the education system: they argue ‘an adequate response to the crisis in children’s mental health and wellbeing must be grounded in addressing the health of the system as a whole’.

A similar need to focus on a key point of vulnerability – in this case transition to secondary school - motivates Saville et al in their paper on what happened to children moving from primary to secondary school. Practices used during the Covid crisis, including keeping new students in their own ‘bubbles’, allowed children to feel safe and get to know the secondary school context more gradually. Keeping the students in one physical area of the school during the Covid restrictions was also beneficial for some, though the authors note that others wanted to ‘explore’ more, and the lack of extracurricular activities was limiting. These changes eased the process of transition for those students who struggled with what Saville et al call the ‘social, practical, emotional and cognitive demands’ of starting secondary school. The authors recommend that schools take on board some of the practices used during the ‘natural experiment’ of the Covid crisis, and note that some schools have already adopted these. They argue for specific teachers for the first year of secondary school (Year 7, age 11–12), who stay with their mixed-attainment class for the whole day, in order to better develop peer and teacher relationships.

Changes to curriculum and pedagogy

Play is the focus of the work of Cannon et al, based on the Play Observatory project which was set up during the crisis, ‘driven by an urgent need to document and preserve for future generations the voices of children at a time of global crisis’. This important dataset forms the basis for their paper which explores how some children used their digital skills and knowledge to creatively and agentively respond to the restrictive context of the pandemic. During the project, children submitted multi-media works to the project website, and these are analysed here as ‘holistic and agentive approaches to learning and literacy’. What we learn from this, the authors argue, is that children are resilient and resourceful, and creative in unexpected ways. This lays the ground for an alternative bold vision for learning in the primary years, which includes provision in schools for creative engagements with multiple modes of meaning-making and free experimentation and improvisation. The reimagining of pedagogy and curriculum suggested by children’s play during the crisis also includes more self-directed opportunities, and ‘intra-active and social making and sharing experiences among local networks’. These changes will make use of the intrinsic motivation demonstrated during Covid, as well as resolving the issue of equity by giving all children, not just the more well-resourced, chances to use their improvisation and media skills and develop their interests.

The issue of motivation also arises in Qvortrup and Lomholdt’s paper on pupil-centred learning approaches, based on their research with 1148 pupils aged 8–12 years in Denmark. Their project, titled ‘A window of change: transformations of playful learning environments in kindergarten and primary school during and after COVID-19’, engaged with the idea of the crisis as a driver for thinking differently about education, and particularly the issue of child centred learning. They make a distinction between pupil-initiated approaches and teacher-guided pupil-centred approaches in their analysis of their quantitative survey data, and conclude that pupils experiencing teacher guidance were associated with the highest social, emotional, and academic wellbeing and more positive self-efficacy (their belief in their ability to achieve certain things). The disadvantage of collecting data during uncertain times is that, as the authors acknowledge, we cannot be sure if the same findings would result if the research were undertaken in more ‘normal’ times, but Qvortrup and Lomholdt conclude that there is a need for further research to understand the complexity of pupil-centred approaches.

In a second paper from Denmark, Qvortrup and Lykkegaard used their study of what different stakeholders value in terms of educational quality to understand how education systems can be ‘built back better’. The research team asked a question which speaks directly to the theme of ‘reimagining’ education after Covid: ‘What have you learned during the COVID-19 pandemic that could be used to make school and teaching better in the future?’, to over 2000 primary students, 153 parents, 176 staff and 14 school leaders. The responses suggest a number of what the authors describe as ‘politically and ethically feasible focus points for quality teaching and education after COVID-19’. Among these are points which resonate with international literature from the crisis, such as a focus on students’ and school staff’s well-being, online-teaching, and improved school–home collaboration and information/communication from school. Danish respondents also identified outdoor teaching and outdoor time, new and creative teaching method and shorter school days as important ways to ‘build back better’. This paper suggests that stakeholders’ experiences may provide the motivation and justification to ‘transform the system fast and radically’, if they are listened to and respected. As we see in many papers, here the authors argue that cooperation across stakeholder groups is vital if what has been learnt during the crisis is to be used to improve education.

Tackling disadvantage and poverty

Finally, the reimagining suggested by Baker and Bakopoulou in their paper is a series of social, economic and political transformations, which they argue are required to build an education system that can support the needs of all. Their paper begins with a discussion of empirical data relating to children’s centres during pandemic and the issues facing those who use the centres and who live in poverty. These include social isolation, domestic violence, poverty and destitution associated with unemployment and changes to Universal Credit, food insecurity and mental health problems. Importantly, the authors note that these challenges were not unique to Covid times, but also due to ongoing inequity. Thus they argue that we need better recognition of how important early years are and the role played by children’s centres as a frontline service, mitigating the impact of poverty, alongside early years school settings. The research provides an opportunity to better understand what challenges these families experience, but also the policy and practice changes required to truly meet their needs. A reimagined system, however, would treat not just the symptoms of the problem but also the cause – greater social inequality – and thus requires more radical and critical thinking about potential ‘transformative change in how some of our core social and economic institutions work’.

This paper resonates strongly with the research conducted during the crisis by one of us (Bradbury), as part of the team involved in two ESRC-funded projects based at UCL (along with Rachael Levy, in this issue). A key point raised early during the 2020 lockdown was the importance of schools in providing for children’s welfare – be that food or safety (Bradbury and Duncan 2020). Like the children’s centres in Baker and Bakopoulu’s paper, we found that schools were the frontline service for many families, advising on housing and food, and making sure vulnerable children were safe. This burden fell unequally on some schools (see Moss et al. 2020), meaning that some were far more focused on providing home learning resources. The theme of how schools and early years settings have a role in resolving food poverty continues to be relevant during the ‘cost of living’ crisis in the UK, and is the focus of current research at UCL (see link) and recent literature (Baker and Bakopoulou 2022).

Concluding comments

Taken together, these papers identify numerous opportunities to reimagine education differently, in ways which might or might not cohere. What binds them, however, is a desire to use research as a spur to action and reform, often in significant and wide-ranging ways. There is a risk, we would agree with these authors, that what was learnt during the huge disruption of Covid, is too easily forgotten in a rush to return to normality, and to ‘catch up’. Researchers spent their time gathering new and important data, during a period when there were many challenges, and thus want their work to contribute to a better education system for a post-pandemic world.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.