Why did schools remain closed for so long during the corona pandemic?

For primary school director Eva Naaijkens, the corona period was “the most intense period” of her career. Schools had to close for extended periods several times. Even when they were open, education was limited. According to the director of the Alan Turing School in Amsterdam, the cabinet’s decisions were often “in the air for a long time”, forcing schools to improvise at the last minute. “Every time I tried to anticipate.” But at one point, when nine teachers were sick at the same time, she thought, “I’m just disorganized.”

The parliamentary Corona inquiry committee will look back on the closure of education in public hearings in the coming days. During those weeks, children had to rely on online lessons and homework assignments. This created significant learning gaps and widened the differences between students, because not everyone had a computer at home, a quiet place to learn or parents who could help.

Students had to stay home even longer. They received online classes for most of the pandemic. This led to loneliness, lack of motivation and sometimes serious psychological complaints.

NRC spoke to teachers, school directors, educational experts, student organizations and interest groups about the school closures. What do they hope and expect from the hearings of the committee of inquiry? What questions do they have about the cabinet decisions? And what message would they like to give to the committee of inquiry?

A lot of panic

The recurring question is how the decision-making process regarding the closures took place and whether the interests of children and young people were taken into account. Some still find it understandable that the cabinet decided that education had to close in the first phase of the pandemic, in March 2020. “We had to act very quickly and a lot of decisions were made based on feeling, without knowing what possible impact it would have,” says Jan Paul Beekman, then rector of the Spinoza Lyceum in Amsterdam. He hopes that the survey will at least make it clear “that no matter what happens, schools must always remain open. That is the lesson we have learned, I think.”

Lobke Vlaming, director of Parents & Education, which represents the interests of parents with children in primary, secondary and secondary vocational education, also thinks that education was closed with the best intentions. “There was a lot of panic in that first phase,” she says. “That decision was made in that panic, while if science and the RIVM had been listened to, it might not have been necessary. I don’t think you should say: this was wrong.” Vlaming finds it more useful to learn lessons. “How do we do that next time?”

Others judge more harshly. Karin den Heijer, mathematics teacher at Erasmiaans Gymnasium and Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, was critical of the closures early in the corona crisis. According to her, these were not rationally substantiated. “While the RIVM and the Outbreak Management Team (OMT) had advised to keep the schools open, they still closed,” she says. Den Heijer focused her criticism not only on the cabinet, which decided this, but also on the role of teachers’ unions and school leaders. “They put pressure on the cabinet,” she says. Den Heijer warned that children would pay the price.

According to her, decisions were also made later in the corona crisis that were not based on scientific knowledge. She hopes that the committee of inquiry will expose this. “Even when it was clear that students did not pose a risk of infection, the schools had to remain closed. And when they opened again, everyone in the school had to keep a distance of one and a half meters. That was unworkable.”

At the time, Den Heijer himself contacted the RIVM to ask why this was necessary, because the virus did not appear to be spreading on a large scale in schools. There she heard that the advice came from the OMT. “I thought that was very strange, that the OMT gave advice to the RIVM, instead of the other way around.”

On a beer mat

In the summer of 2020, when schools reopened after the first lockdown, it was clear that children were not doing well. Research revealed learning disadvantages and vulnerable students in particular were at risk. However, restrictive measures were imposed on schools again in the autumn, meaning that not all students were allowed to go to school at the same time. And in December 2020 they closed again for weeks.

Sociologist Thijs Bol (University of Amsterdam) believes that the inquiry committee should investigate how much education played a role in the decision-making on the corona measures. “What priority, or lack of priority, was education given?” Bol conducted research during the first lockdown that showed that the closures increased inequality between students. “Yet the measures continued to be extended.” His impression is that the consequences for students were considered less important than other interests, such as the economy.

To dampen the negative impact of the corona crisis, a recovery program was announced in February 2021: the National Education Program (NPO). The government allocated a total of 8.5 billion euros for this. According to Bol, that amount “just came out of the blue.” “I have a feeling it was invented on the back of a beer mat.” His impression is that the government wanted to counter the growing dissatisfaction about the closures. That they thought “we have to come up with something, because this doesn’t reflect well on us.”

Bol points out that not only he himself, but also the Court of Audit immediately made critical comments, because the NPO was launched without clear objectives or measurable indicators. Bol: “What goals had they drawn up in advance? I assume that this has been discussed or emailed in the Council of Ministers or in the departments. I am curious about that.”

Mustard after the meal

A complaint that resounds in all conversations is that the emergency signals that all was not well with children and young people did not seem to get through to the cabinet. “We were mainly the implementers of policy,” is how Eva Naaijkens expresses the feeling that prevailed in the education sector. Only the advice from the OMT, which included medical and epidemiological experts, seemed to count for the cabinet.

Bol founded the ‘Education-OMT’ in February 2021 with educational scientist Inge de Wolf (Maastricht University) and other professors. “We wanted to counterbalance that very one-sided medical view,” says De Wolf. The Education OMT formulated advice, both for the government’s corona policy and for educational practice.

The field was happy with the advice and the Education OMT also spoke a number of times with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), says the Maastricht professor. “But we never spoke to the real OMT.” She would like the committee of inquiry to investigate why the perspective of education was not included in the decision-making process. “Because children have really been harmed by the school closures.”

Freddy Weima – chairman of the PO Council, the interest group for primary education, since April 2021 – had “almost daily” contact with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. He looks back positively on that collaboration. “But we were not at the table in the Catshuis. And I also did not have the impression that the ministry was really in the lead. The decision-making of the OMT was very dominant.”

Weima thinks the parliamentary inquiry is “a bit of an afterthought”, because the Dutch Safety Board has already conducted extensive research into corona policy. He especially hopes that the interrogations will show “how incredibly hard work has been done in education. And how tough it was for teachers to still teach under complicated circumstances.”

In addition, Weima hopes “that the inquiry committee will come up with a number of recommendations that will help us to be resilient. For example, how schools can remain open in tense times.”

Portrayed as evildoers

The group that perhaps felt least heard were the students. Martijn Janse founded the Lieve Mark foundation during corona times, which asked then Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) to also pay attention to students in the corona policy. “For months, young people or students were not mentioned once in the press conferences,” says Janse.

He wonders why young people were not given more freedom, since they were less likely to get sick. “I am curious whether age discrimination was ever on the table at all and why it was not ultimately chosen, even though it would have improved compliance with the measures by young people.”

According to Janse, pediatrician Károly Illy and intensivist Diederik Gommers were the only OMT members who paid attention to the impact on young people. He would like to hear how they tried to draw attention to the interests of young people privately and how much resistance they encountered.

In addition to mental problems, many young people struggled with financial worries. They had no permanent contracts and worked a limited number of hours per week, for example in the catering industry. That work completely disappeared during corona times. Lyle Muns, who was chairman of the National Student Union (LSVb) during the corona crisis, would like to know why almost no financial safety net was created for young people. “There seemed to be money for everything, everything was possible: why was so little done to dampen the economic impact on young people?”

Muns was also bothered by the negative way in which young people were talked about. “We were portrayed as evildoers, as virus spreaders.” Youth organizations asked the OMT and the cabinet to speak about young people in a more respectful way. Muns: “We were sacrificing a lot to protect others. Many young people have largely stayed at home for almost two years, in a very vulnerable phase of their lives.”

Karin den Heijer hopes that the survey will lead to recognition of the suffering of the younger generation. “Children and young people were terribly frightened. The message was: if you don’t keep your distance, grandpa could die.” She believes that “an apology should be offered for this” in the survey.

Give a gift





Part





Email the editor