Following an established REL Northeast & Islands research protocol, we conducted a search for recent research on school closures due to natural disasters. We focused on identifying resources that specifically addressed research on actions implemented by teachers, administrators, or school systems to support students' academic or social-emotional needs during natural disasters. The sources searched included ERIC and other federally funded databases and organizations, academic research databases, and general Internet search engines (For details, please see the methods section at the end of this memo.)
We have not evaluated the quality of references and the resources provided in this response and we offer them only for your reference. Because our search for references is based on the most commonly used resources of research, it is not comprehensive and other relevant references and resources may exist.
Education Development Trust. https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com
From the website: “Education Development Trust works collaboratively with national and local governments, schools and other partners from around the world to design and deliver sustainable solutions to improve education and transform lives. Our work is evidence informed and we invest annually in our programme of educational research.”
Selected reference:
Hallgarten, J., Gorgen, K., & Sims, K. (2020). Overview of emerging country-level response to providing educational continuity under COVID-19: What are the lessons learned from supporting education in conflicts and emergencies that could be relevant for EdTech-related responses to COVID-19? Education Development Trust.
From the executive summary: “The report explores lessons from conflict and education in emergencies (EiE) seeking evidence-informed recommendations for policy makers that can help in the global response to Covid-19. The report explores transferability from EiE contexts to non-EiE Covid-19-affected contexts. The issue of how Covid-19 will impact on existing EiE contexts and displaced pupils is a vital one, but it is beyond the scope of this review. Although the majority of examples explored are technology-enabled, the report also considers how other lessons learned from how no-tech interventions in EIE have supported continuity of learning, and how technologies might support their adoption in other contexts. The scope of this review is largely limited to school-age learners. Given the other reviews currently being undertaken on gender, disadvantage and special educational needs, this review has not concentrated on these more specific areas. Also out of scope is evidence regarding attempts to mitigate the primary impact of disease outbreaks in EiE settings (i.e. preventing the spread of disease and further outbreaks). We have built on the two recent reviews on remote teaching and on Covid-19 distance learning responses, but we have not repeated their conclusions. We have attempted to find examples of practice that are consistent with the conclusions around effective pedagogies, whilst still including examples where 'teacher presence' may be impossible or precarious. The report largely uses meta-analyses of literature, but also includes a scan of the most recent (2019–20) peer-reviewed journal articles and grey literature.”
Save the Children. https://www.savethechildren.org
From the website: “For 100 years, we've been giving children in the U.S. and around the world a healthy start in life, the opportunity to learn and protection from harm. When
crisis strikes, we are always among the first to respond and the last to leave. We do whatever it takes to save children, transforming their lives and the future we share.”
Selected reference:
Tauson, M. & Stannard, L. (2018). EdTech for learning in emergencies and displaced settings: A rigorous review and narrative synthesis. Save the Children.
https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/13238/pdf/edtech-learning.pdf
From the executive summary: “…the purpose of this report is to build an understanding of 'what works' in EdTech to ensure that children can learn in crisis or displaced settings. The field of EdTech is vast, and has influenced almost every facet of modern educational delivery. This report will focus on 'child facing' EdTech, which refers to technology – both software and hardware – designed directly for use by the child or by a teacher, parent, or facilitator working with a child. Overall, this report amasses evidence to develop a more nuanced understanding of what is required to implement effective and ethical EdTech programmes that lead to children learning, asking the research question:
How can the utilisation of EdTech (at home or at school) for teaching and learning best facilitate the learning process of children in crisis-affected settings?”
Keywords and Search Strings
The following keywords and search strings were used to search the reference databases and other sources:
Natural disasters school closures
Natural disasters schools closed
Long term school closures
Long term schools closed
Extended school closures
Education in emergencies
Databases and Resources
We searched ERIC for relevant resources. ERIC is a free online library of over 1.6 million citations of education research sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences. Additionally, we searched Google Scholar.
Reference Search and Selection Criteria
When we were searching and reviewing resources, we considered the following criteria:
Date of the publication: References and resources published for the last seven years, from 2013 to present, were included in the search and review.
Search Priorities of Reference Sources: Search priority is given to study reports, briefs, and other documents that are published and/or reviewed by IES and other federal or federally funded organizations, academic databases, including WWC, ERIC, and NCEE.
Methodology: The following methodological priorities/considerations were given in the review and selection of the references: (a) study types – randomized control trials, quasi experiments, surveys, descriptive data analyses, literature reviews, policy briefs, etc., generally in this order; (b) target population, samples (representativeness of the target population, sample size, volunteered or randomly selected, etc.), study duration, etc.; (c) limitations, generalizability of the findings and conclusions, etc.
This memorandum is one in a series of quick-turnaround responses to specific questions posed by educational stakeholders in the Northeast & Islands Region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, US Virgin Islands, and Vermont), which is served by the Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands at Education Development Center. This memorandum was prepared by REL Northeast & Islands under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-IES-17-C-0008, administered by Education Development Center. Its content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.