Suspension of face-to-face instruction in schools during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to concerns about consequences for students’ learning. So far, data to study this question have been limited. Here we evaluate the effect of school closures on primary school performance using exceptionally rich data from The Netherlands (n ≈ 350,000). We use the fact that national examinations took place before and after lockdown and compare progress during this period to the same period in the 3 previous years. The Netherlands underwent only a relatively short lockdown (8 wk) and features an equitable system of school funding and the world’s highest rate of broadband access. Still, our results reveal a learning loss of about 3 percentile points or 0.08 standard deviations. The effect is equivalent to one-fifth of a school year, the same period that schools remained closed. Losses are up to 60% larger among students from less-educated homes, confirming worries about the uneven toll of the pandemic on children and families. Investigating mechanisms, we find that most of the effect reflects the cumulative impact of knowledge learned rather than transitory influences on the day of testing. Results remain robust when balancing on the estimated propensity of treatment and using maximum-entropy weights or with fixed-effects specifications that compare students within the same school and family. The findings imply that students made little or no progress while learning from home and suggest losses even larger in countries with weaker infrastructure or longer school closures.

Suspension of face-to-face instruction in schools during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to concerns about consequences for student learning. So far, data to study this question have been limited. Here we evaluate the effect of school closures on primary school performance using exceptionally rich data from the Netherlands (n≈350,000). The Netherlands represents a best-case scenario with a relatively short lockdown (8 weeks) and a high degree of technological preparedness. We use the fact that national exams took place before and after lockdown, and compare progress during this period to the same period in the three previous years using a difference-in-differences design. Our results reveal a learning loss of about 3 percentile points or 0.08 standard deviations. These results remain robust when balancing on the estimated propensity of treatment and using maximum entropy weights, or with fixed-effects specifications that compare students within the same school and family. Losses are up to 55% larger among students from less-educated homes. Investigating mechanisms, we find that most of the effect reflects the cumulative impact of knowledge learned rather than transitory influences on the day of testing. The average learning loss is equivalent to a fifth of a school year, nearly exactly the same period that schools remained closed. These results imply that students made little or no progress whilst learning from home, and suggest much larger losses in countries less prepared for remote learning.

In this article, I study the role that threatening events play in shaping both the occurrence and the distribution of intergroup conflict. Using the case of anti-refugee attacks in Germany, the study finds that the 2015 New Year’s Eve (NYE) sexual assaults led to a dramatic surge in the daily rate of violence, far surpassing the more short-lived effect of domestic and European terrorist attacks. Importantly, this effect was more pronounced among districts with low prior levels of anti-refugee hostility and far-right support. The NYE event both increased the frequency and changed the distribution of subsequent attacks—mobilizing new, previously peaceful communities to behave aggressively towards local refugee populations. Together, these findings reveal that threatening events not only affect the amount of intergroup conflict, but may also alter the structural conditions under which such conflict emerges in the first place.

There is growing academic interest in examining how terrorist attacks shape the majority’s attitudes towards minority groups. Yet, little is known of how these minority groups react to the backlash such events provoke. This paper leverages the exogenous occurrence of a series of terrorist attacks during the fieldwork period of two surveys to estimate how such events affect the sentiment of both citizens and asylum seekers in Germany. Results of the natural experiment reveal that the 2016 terror attacks in Nice, Würzburg, and Ansbach substantially increased anti-refugee sentiment among German respondents. In line with this increase in hostility, refugees experienced more discrimination, felt less welcome in Germany, and suffered clinically relevant declines in mental health in the aftermath of the attacks. These results provide a more holistic understanding of how terrorism corrodes intergroup relations and how it affects those that are blamed for the events and thus suffer the brunt of the backlash following their occurrence.