Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON COVID-19 
RESEARCH
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE EARLY GRADE READING 
STUDY (EGRS), THE READING SUPPORT PROJECT (RSP) AND 
BENCHMARKING
16 April 2021
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001

Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
i
AUTHORS
Jennifer Bisgard, Project Director (Khulisa)
Benita Williams, Senior Education Research Expert (Benita Williams Evaluation)
Dr. Gabrielle Wills and Cobus Burger and Heleen Hofmeyr, Research on Socio-Economic 
Policy (ReSEP)
Monica Bandeira, Jessica-Leigh Paul and Meredith McCormac (Khulisa)
Photo Credit: Khulisa Management Services (2020)
CONTACT DETAILS
Margaret Roper
26 7th Avenue
Parktown North
Johannesburg, 2196
Telephone: 011-447-6464 
Email: mroper@khulisa.com
Web Address: www.khulisa.com
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ATP Annual Teaching Plan
CATI Computer Aided Telephonic Interview
CDC Centers for Disease Control
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
DBE Department of Basic Education
EFAL English First Additional Language
EGR Early Grade Reading
EGRS Early Grade Reading Study
FPD Foundation for Professional Development
GHS General Household Survey
GoSA Government of South Africa
HOD Head of Department
IDIQ Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity
KK Dr. Kenneth Kaunda District
NIDS-CRAM National Income Dynamics Study – Coronavirus Rapid Mobile 
Survey
NMM Ngaka Modiri Molema District
NW North West Province
PED Provincial Education Department
PERFORM Practical Education Research for Optimal Reading and 
Management
PERFORMANCE Practical Education Research For Optimal Reading and 
Management: Analyze, Collaborate, Evaluate
PSS-10 Perceived Stress Scale
PSS10-C Perceived Stress Scale COVID-19 modification
ReSEP Research on Socio-Economic Policy
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
iii
RSP Reading Support Project
SARS-CoV-2 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
SGB School Government Body
SMS Short Message Service
SMT School Management Team
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
iv
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
How much contact time did learners lose due to the COVID-19 school disruptions in 2020? 2
What response was implemented by schools, teachers and parents to support learning and how much non-contact teaching did 
schools and teachers deliver during the lockdown period, and after schooling resumed? 3
How much non-contact learning did learners do during the lockdown period, and after schooling resumed? 4
Which modalities were most feasible to facilitate non-contact learning during the lockdown period, and after schooling resumed?
5
To what extent did teachers cover the standard and trimmed EGR curriculum for the 2020 academic year, and how does this 
compare to business as usual? 6
What effect has the COVID-19 school disruptions had on early grade reading learner performance in 2020? (Objective and 
perceptual) 7
What about the COVID-19 pandemic worries teachers most? 8
What is the level of stress experienced by teachers due to COVID-19 pandemic? 9
Did teachers and school principals feel supported to deal with the stress caused by the COVID-19 disruptions to school? 9
Has the level of stress caused by the covid-19 pandemic affected the ability of schools, teachers and learners to teach / learn?
10
What kind of psychological or practical support will help to reduce teachers’ covid-19 related stress? 11
Introduction to the report 15
Background 15
Aim Of The Covid-19 Research 16
Literature review 17
Understanding school disruptions 18
Defining “psychosocial wellbeing” 19
Evaluation Questions 21
Approach AND Methodology 22
Instrument Design 23
Sample 24
Analysis 25
Triangulation with Other data 25
An educator level analysis of response rates 25
A school level analysis of response rates 27
Response rates by school characteristics 30
Disruptions to Teaching and Learning 32
Research question 1.1: How much contact time did learners lose due to the COVID-19 school disruptions in 2020? 32
Research questions 1.2 and 1.3: What response was implemented by schools, teachers and parents to support learning and 
How much non-contact teaching did schools and teachers deliver during the lockdown period, and after schooling resumed?35
Research question 1.4: How much non-contact learning did learners do during the lockdown period, and after schooling 
resumed? 43
Research question 1:5: Which modalities were most feasible to facilitate non-contact learning during the lockdown period, and 
after schooling resumed? 47
Research question 1.6: To what extent did teachers cover the standard and trimmed EGR curriculum covered for the 2020 
academic year, and how does this compare to business as usual? 51
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
v
Research question 1.7: What effect has the COVID-19 school disruptions had on early grade reading learner performance in 
2020? 53
Psychosocial wellbeing of teachers 59
Research Question 2.1: What about the COVID-19 pandemic worries teachers and SMT members the most? 59
Research Question 2.2: What is the level of stress experienced by teachers due to COVID-19 pandemic? 62
Research Question 2.3: Did teachers and school principals feel supported to deal with the stress caused by the COVID-19 
disruptions to school? 65
Research Question 2.4: Has the level of stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic affected the ability of schools, teachers and 
learners to teach / learn? 67
Psychological Support for dealing with COVID-19 72
Research Question 3.1: What kind of psychological support will help to reduce their COVID-19 related stress? 72
Conclusions and Recommendations 73
References 76
Annexes 79
List of Figures
Figure 1 Bronfenbrenner Ecological System’s Theory ................................................................................17
Figure 2: Characteristics of the educator COVID-19 survey sample .................................................................27
Figure 3: Which of the following activities were done to support non-contact teaching and learning in your school during school 
closure? (Read options) .................................................................................................................37
Figure 4: Do you think that, in general, learners did most of the work that teachers gave them to do during school closure? ..45
Figure 5: Percentage of respondents indicating learners did some work during the school closures, by non-contact teaching 
approaches used during the school closures...........................................................................................45
Figure 6: A summary of indicators related to contact and non-contact teaching and learning across schools in the COVID-19 
educator survey. A school level analysis. ..............................................................................................47
Figure 7: Practical support that would help teachers improve their ability to teach (effectively) if schools closed ................51
Figure 8: Grade 1-3 teacher’s response to the question “Compared to learners you had last year, how would you describe these 
learners' reading level in terms of where they should be at this time of year?”......................................................56
Figure 9: Foundation Phase teachers’ perceptions of whether learners will catch-up learning losses from 2020 to 2021, by how 
much they think learners are behind in their reading compared to where they usually are. .......................................58
Figure 10: What worries you the most about COVID-19 and teaching at the moment? (Spontaneous mention).................60
Figure 11: Levels of Support from Principals...........................................................................................66
Figure 12: Perceived impact of COVID-19 on educators’ ability to teach, and SMT members’ ability to manage schools.......68
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Completed response rate by role of educators .............................................................................. 26
Table 2: Completed response rate by school district in which educator works ..................................................... 26
Table 3: Completed response rate by grade taught by educator .................................................................... 27
Table 4: Schools reflected in the educator COVID-19 survey in relation to the Masterlist of Schools and the “sampling frame”, by 
district .................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 5: EGRS schools by district and treatment arm reflected in the sampling frame and completed educator COVID-19 survey 
sample.................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 6: Number of teacher/principal completed responses by unique schools in the survey ..................................... 30
Table 7: School quintiles reflected in the educator COVID-19 survey data in relation to the Masterlist of Schools and the “sampling 
frame” provided to GeoPoll ............................................................................................................. 31
Table 8: Total number of official teaching days in 2020 .............................................................................. 35
Table 9: Estimated number of days at school for learners after accounting for rotational school schedules ..................... 35
Table 10: What model of schooling has your school adopted in Term 4 as a result of COVID-19?............................... 39
Table 11: In the midst of COVID-19 school closures, how did you communicate with parents of your learners? (Options not read 
out, multiple response option) .......................................................................................................... 41
Table 12: During school closures, did the communication with parents change, when compared to before? (Term 1) ......... 41
Table 13: During school closures, did the type of communication with teachers change, when compared to before? .......... 42
Table 14: How much homework did you give to learners during school closure as a result of COVID-19? (Read options)..... 44
Table 15: How much Setswana/English reading and writing homework do you give to learners to complete on the days they are 
not at school?............................................................................................................................ 46
Table 16: If schools had to close again, which of the following teaching activities would be most feasible for you / your teachers?
............................................................................................................................................ 50
Table 17: Do you think the trimmed curriculum was feasible to implement?........................................................ 52
Table 18: Compared to learners you had last year, how would you describe these learners' reading level in terms of where they
should be at this time of year?.......................................................................................................... 55
Table 19: Do you think that learners will be able to catch-up any learning losses from 2020 in 2021? ........................... 58
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION 
Khulisa Management Services is submitting this Preliminary Report on COVID-19 Research 
to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), as part of the COVID-19 
study which is conducted along with data collection and analysis for the Early Grade Reading 
Study (EGRS), the Reading Support Project (RSP) and the Language Benchmarking study. 
Early 2020 marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 19, 2020, in response 
to this pandemic, the South African government closed schools and placed the country under 
“lockdown”. Learners only returned to school in August 2020 and since then, learners were 
only attending school on a 50 percent rotational basis resulting in a continuation of the further 
loss of contact teaching time. This report delves into the impact of COVID-19 on schools, 
teachers and school managers in the North West Province, South AFrica. 
The COVID-19 school disruption influences how schools and teachers function, which then 
influences learner performance and ultimately, learner outcomes. To mitigate the effects of 
COVID-19 and future unplanned school disruptions, it is critical to understand how the COVID￾19 disruption affected schooling, curriculum delivery, teacher performance, learner 
performance, and the psychosocial effects on individuals’ emotions, thoughts, relationships, 
and ability to function. It is also important to understand the extent to which there were 
accessible alternative provisions for learning and the degree to which learning took place in 
the home. To explore each of these, the research team gathered insights from principals, SMT 
members and teachers. 
This preliminary report draws on data from the educator COVID-19 survey, which was a 
computer aided telephonic interview (CATI) that collected responses from 439 teachers and 
SMT members from 197 quintile one to three primary schools in two districts in North West 
Province. The educators in the sample largely comprise Grade 1 to 3 teachers. The survey 
was implemented between the January 22 to 30, 2021 prior to the commencement of the 2021 
academic year and in the midst of a “second wave” of COVID-19 infections, which resulted in 
the Department of Basic Education (DBE) delaying schools reopening for two weeks. The 
survey’s timing could have affected the data. First, responses about the degree to which 
educators reported feeling in control and able to cope with the stress of COVID-19 could have 
been negatively biased by the uncertainty about school reopening in 2021. Second, educators’ 
perceptions on learning losses were based on learner information gleaned prior to the two￾month long summer break - a period during which these losses could have been amplified.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
2
Third, educators were asked questions about a time period as far back as May and June 2020, 
and it is likely that recall bias may have affected their responses. 
Despite these potential limitations, the educator COVID-19 survey provides insights into the 
extent to which teaching and learning has been disrupted due to COVID-19. It documents the 
level of psychosocial strain that educators are experiencing across a large school sample. 
Further, the survey also identifies what strategies or practices schools implemented to mitigate 
the disruption.
The findings are obtained from a large number of EGRS I schools and, to a lesser extent, the 
schools in the RSP that did not participate in the EGRS I. However, the educator and school 
sampling approach used for the survey remains purposive in nature. For this reason, the 
findings have limited generalizability and care should be taken not to extrapolate the results 
to all schools in the North West province or in South Africa. The findings also draw from self￾reported educator responses, where self-reports and perceptions of learning losses would 
need to be verified with direct observations of practices adopted by schools or teachers, and 
objective data on learning losses. 
QUESTION 1. HOW MUCH HAS TEACHING AND LEARNING BEEN 
DISRUPTED DUE TO COVID-19?
HOW MUCH CONTACT TIME DID LEARNERS LOSE DUE TO THE COVID-19 SCHOOL 
DISRUPTIONS IN 2020?
Kotzé (2021) calculates that relative to 2019, between 44 to 97 days of school days were lost 
for different grades in 2020. Kotzé notes that in the Foundation Phase grades specifically, 34 
to 37 percent of official school days were lost in 2020 relative to 2019 due to school closures 
and phased-in grade approaches to the return to school. However, most schools in resource 
constrained school environments followed rotational time-tabling schedules, with learners only 
attending on alternate days. After accounting for alternate day rotational schedules, it is 
estimated that in 2020 Foundation Phase learners lost between 56-57 percent of school days 
relative to 2019 (Kotzé, 2021).
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
3
Alternative day rotational schedules were followed by most schools (at least 93%) reflected in 
the Educator COVID-19 Survey. Very little contact teaching took place during school closures 
with no online teaching identified by respondents in 92 percent of the schools reflected in the 
survey. Therefore, 56 to 57 percent of school days lost in 2020 relative to 2019 represents a 
best-case scenario of lost contact teaching time in these schools for Foundation Phase 
learners. If one accounts for learner absenteeism, this is likely to be considerably lower. 
WHAT RESPONSE WAS IMPLEMENTED BY SCHOOLS, TEACHERS AND PARENTS TO 
SUPPORT LEARNING AND HOW MUCH NON-CONTACT TEACHING DID SCHOOLS 
AND TEACHERS DELIVER DURING THE LOCKDOWN PERIOD, AND AFTER 
SCHOOLING RESUMED?
Non-contact teaching activities during school closures
In the surveyed quintile one to three schools, almost none of the learners were reported as 
having access to virtual or online teaching opportunities during lockdown. Only four percent of 
educator respondents used an online or virtual teaching approach such as Skype, Zoom or 
Google Classrooms. In a school level analysis of responses, the use of online or virtual 
teaching during school closures was apparent in just eight percent of the schools. 
Furthermore, very few educators in the two North West districts encouraged learners to listen 
to radio or to watch educational programs on television. Just five percent reported 
communicating to learners about radio or television classes.
However, the results are indicative of how many Foundation Phase learners in the two North 
West districts may have had access to the DBE workbooks, and potentially other hard copies 
of material to support learning at home. The provision of DBE workbooks or printed materials 
was apparent in 90 percent of 194 schools.
The most common support activity by educators for non-contact teaching was to send home 
“DBE workbooks with learners” (63%), followed by providing a “package of support in the form 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
4
of learning materials in hard copy” (34%), and providing “printed material” which parents 
collected and returned (28%). 
Rotational schedules when learners returned to school
For 93 percent of schools reflected in the survey, an alternate day 
rotational model was identified by at least one respondent in the school. 
The most common model of schooling adopted in Term 4 of 2020, was 
attendance on alternate days of the week (as reported by 51% of the 
educator sample) followed by a 10-day cycle of three days one week 
and two days the following week (reported by 39% of the educator 
sample). Platooning, where half of the learners attend in the morning and half in the afternoon,
was very uncommon (reported by just 3% of the educator sample). 
Communication with parents and teachers during school closures 
The most common approaches to communicate with parents during school closures were 
sending “WhatsApp messages to parents” (37% of the educator sample), sending “school 
newsletters” (32%) and calling “parents directly or via WhatsApp” (20% of the educator 
sample). However, just seven percent of the respondents indicated that they sent homework 
to learners via parents.
Internal school communications between School Management Team (SMT) members and 
teachers during school closures arguably suffered with 43 percent of SMT respondents 
indicating that they communicated less directly with teachers during school closures. 
HOW MUCH NON-CONTACT LEARNING DID LEARNERS DO DURING THE LOCKDOWN 
PERIOD, AND AFTER SCHOOLING RESUMED?
Self-reported educator responses are indicative of whether any work was done by learners at 
home or whether efforts were made by schools and educators to support learning at home.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
5
Non-contact learning during school closures 
About 86 percent of teacher respondents provided homework to learners during the school 
closures. It is not clear, however, if this was distinct from just sending home printed materials 
and DBE workbooks with learners at the start of the school closures. Yet, even if homework 
was given, the question remains as to whether learners did this work? Teachers were then 
asked “Do you think that, in general, learners did most of the work that teachers gave them to 
do during school closures?” About 54 percent indicated that work was given during school 
closures and it was done by learners (either in full or partially). 
For the largest group of teachers 
that reported sending home DBE 
workbooks with learners, almost 
60 percent indicated that learners 
did some of the work during the 
school closures. As expected, where teachers report uses of digital technology – reflected in 
the provision of soft copy material (via email or WhatsApp) or the use of online or virtual 
teaching – learners are more likely to be perceived as having done the work that they were 
given. 
Non-contact learning after schooling resumed 
It was necessary for schools to implement approaches to non-contact learning even after 
children returned to school, due to the rotational school schedules adopted and thus reduced 
opportunities to learn. About 90 percent of teacher respondents reported having given learners 
Setswana or English homework on the days they were not at school. Of teacher respondents, 
it is suggested that 71 percent gave learners both reading and writing homework in Setswana 
and 67 percent gave both reading and writing homework in English. 
WHICH MODALITIES WERE MOST FEASIBLE TO FACILITATE NON-CONTACT 
LEARNING DURING THE LOCKDOWN PERIOD, AND AFTER SCHOOLING RESUMED?
The use of DBE workbooks and printed materials given to learners to take home predominates 
as the de facto approach to support learning at home in North West schools in the survey 
sample. The use of hard copy material and DBE workbooks will also continue to be the 
dominant mode of non-contact learning if schools close again. For nearly 80 percent of 
teachers and SMT members, sending home DBE workbooks is considered the primary 
method for non-contact learning for future school closures.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
6
There is little demand for training of teachers to use online teaching methods, with just 21 
percent of teachers choosing “training on online teaching” as a practical support to improve 
their ability to teach during school closures.
TO WHAT EXTENT DID TEACHERS COVER THE STANDARD AND TRIMMED EGR 
CURRICULUM FOR THE 2020 ACADEMIC YEAR, AND HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO 
BUSINESS AS USUAL?
There are a limited number of questions in the Educator COVID-19 Survey to address this 
specific research question. In her November 2020 article, Hoadley (p. 10-11) notes that 
curriculum trimming was a temporary measure implemented in 2020. While the first round of 
trimming was not substantial, a second round in July 2020 marked a shift toward focusing on 
the “core concepts” with decisions on what to include or exclude devolved to teachers. As 
such, trimming has become school-based and widely variable, with selection and pacing 
requirements relaxed. At the Foundation Phase, the DBE suggested that schools focus daily 
on core skills in Mathematics, Home Language and English, but teach Life Skills or Life 
Orientation on an alternating days. This was later rejected in favor of keeping all subjects. The 
Educator COVID-19 survey did ask teachers about the feasibility of implementing the trimmed 
curriculum. Nearly two thirds of the largely Foundation Phase educators agreed that it was 
feasible to implement 
(65%); a further 14 
percent said it was 
“somewhat” feasible 
and 20 percent said it 
was not feasible to 
implement. How the 
guidance about 
trimming is being 
implemented by 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
7
teachers (especially those who reported feeling it was unfeasible to implement) is likely 
inconsistent and the amount of focus given to early grade reading (EGR) skills relative to pre￾COVID-19 years is unknown. It is noted that a deeper analysis of the curriculum choices made 
by teachers will be possible after more data is collected from schools in 2021.
WHAT EFFECT HAS THE COVID-19 SCHOOL DISRUPTIONS HAD ON EARLY GRADE 
READING LEARNER PERFORMANCE IN 2020? (OBJECTIVE AND PERCEPTUAL)
There is little existing objective evidence on how learner performance in South Africa has been 
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Educator COVID-19 Survey is instructive 
for identifying educator perceptions about the disruptions that the pandemic has had on early 
grade learning. Educators were asked to describe their learners' reading level in terms of 
where they would normally be at this time of year. There is almost unanimous agreement that 
learners are far behind where they should be at this time of the year: 95 percent of the teacher 
sample are aware that learner’s reading development has digressed from its usual path. Of 
teacher respondents, 46 percent indicated that learners were about three months behind 
where learners usually are at this time of the year and 42 percent indicated learners being six
months behind where they usually are. Worryingly, five percent indicated that learners were 
more than a year behind where learners are usually at this time of the year. 
Specifically of Foundation Phase teachers, about 93 percent, 92 percent and 94 percent of 
surveyed teachers in Grades 1, 2 and 3 report that learners are behind in their reading 
development. 
Teachers were also asked whether learners would catch up any learning losses from 2020 in 
2021. About 41 percent said yes, a quarter (25%) said “No”, and nearly a third (32%) 
responded “somewhat” or “maybe”. Just one percent indicated that they didn’t think there 
would be learning losses. The perceived likelihood of catch up is lower the further behind 
teachers think learners are in their reading.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
8
QUESTION 2: HAS THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AFFECTED THE 
PSYCHOSOCIAL WELLBEING OF TEACHERS, PARENTS AND 
LEARNERS TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THEIR ABILITY TO 
TEACH/LEARN OR SUPPORT LEARNERS HAS CHANGED?
WHAT ABOUT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC WORRIES TEACHERS MOST?
When asked what worried educators the most in relation to COVID-19, 42 percent of 
respondents said, “getting infected” followed by 37 percent indicating that they were worried 
about learners not being able to catch up on their work. A further 23 percent indicated that 
they were worried about learners passing without having had enough instruction during 2020 
and 18 percent of respondents were worried about learner drop-outs. Qualitative open-ended 
responses from educators support these findings, with 26 percent of educators noting the 
negative effect of absenteeism and dropouts (including irregular attendance due to COVID-19 
regulations).
The 2021 workload also concerned educators. Not surprisingly, a higher number of 
respondents over the age of 34 (in other words, more experienced educators) were worried 
about getting infected (44%) than those under 34 (28%). This finding resonates with the fact 
that the risk of severe illness increases with age.
1
The data also showed that 16 percent of teachers worried about the lack of contact with 
learners, and therefore their limited ability to explain concepts. Relatedly, teachers worried 
about learners struggling with the curriculum content and not learning what they needed to 
learn. Further, qualitative open-ended responses indicated that teachers perceived or 
experienced that protocols prevented learning, noting problems such as masks making it 
difficult to communicate with and understand learners, confusion over the new timetable and 
alternate teaching days. Educators mentioned other concerns specific to learners, such as 
 
1 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
9
learner forgetfulness, and a lack of learner concentration and focus, all of which will negatively 
influence learner outcomes. 
WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF STRESS EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS DUE TO COVID-19 
PANDEMIC?
Many educators reported feeling stressed about COVID-19, mostly because their sense of 
control over the situation has been affected. Overall, 64 percent of respondents reported being 
nervous or stressed by COVID-19 frequently; 51 percent reported being unable to adequately 
prevent COVID-19 frequently; and 50 percent reported that they frequently felt like something 
serious will happen unexpectedly because of COVID-19. Not all educators reported serious 
distress related to COVID-19, with 48 percent reporting that they could handle their personal 
problems, 45 percent reporting that they had everything under control in relation to teaching 
and learning, and 47 percent reporting they could control the difficulties of parenting / teaching 
/ managing a school that resulted from the COVID-19 disruption. 
DID TEACHERS AND SCHOOL PRINCIPALS FEEL SUPPORTED TO DEAL WITH THE 
STRESS CAUSED BY THE COVID-19 DISRUPTIONS TO SCHOOL?
Teachers reported that they felt most supported by principals, less supported by district 
officials and least supported by Provincial Education Departments (PEDs), which logically 
reflects the relative distance in the structure of each relationship. A total of 43 percent of 
teachers reported that the support to continue teaching during school closures they received 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
10
from principals was normal/ expected, while 36 percent said that it was more than 
normal/expected. A remaining 19 percent reported that they received no (9%) or limited (10%) 
support from their principals to continue teaching during school closures. 
School Government Body (SGB) support to school management teams has not been severely 
affected by COVID-19 disruptions. Of SMT members in the sample, 76 percent reported 
normal/expected (43%) or more than normal/expected (33%) levels of support from the School 
Governing Body (SGB). 
However, there is room for improvement in the extent to which SMTs feel supported by the 
DBE, as reflected in perceptions of district and provincial office support. When asked about 
District Officials’ support in schools, 30 percent of SMT members reported feeling very (20%) 
or extremely (10%) supported. Contrastingly, 29 percent reported that they felt that they were 
not at all (6%) or only slightly (17%) supported by District Officials during school closures. Only 
16 percent of SMT members reported feeling very (9%) or extremely (7%) supported by the 
Provincial Office. Conversely, 46 percent reported feeling that they were not at all (26%) or 
only slightly (20%) supported by the province during school closures.
HAS THE LEVEL OF STRESS CAUSED BY THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AFFECTED THE 
ABILITY OF SCHOOLS, TEACHERS AND LEARNERS TO TEACH / LEARN?
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on teachers and learners via multiple pathways, such 
as the constraints of following COVID-19 protocols, constraints on teaching time and other 
stressors. Over half of the respondents (55%) reported that COVID-19 protocols have made 
it more difficult (29%) or extremely difficult (26%) to do their job. When asked if they thought it 
would be feasible to cover the curriculum in 2021, 44 percent reported that they will not be 
able to do so. Qualitative open-ended responses also reveal the potential academic impacts 
of COVID-19, such as the curriculum not being completed, time limits and constraints, and an 
expected drop in learner performance.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
11
When asked about their ability to teach, 79 percent of respondents indicated that stress related 
to COVID-19 has had a moderate (43%), very (7%), or extreme (29%) negative impact on 
their ability to teach. Interestingly, pandemic related stress has had less of a perceived impact 
on SMT members’ ability to manage a school. Just 28 percent of SMT members reported that 
COVID-19 related stress has impacted their ability to manage the school. 
In relation to learner behavior, 47 percent of respondents reported that there was a large (24%) 
or some (23%) increase in the number of disruptive or challenging behaviors in learners since
they returned to school in August. Qualitative open-ended responses reflect that eight percent 
of teachers perceive learners as having problematic or unproductive attitudes. Teachers 
referred to students “skipping school” and “not doing their work”, or referred to attitudes such 
as “lack of commitment to schoolwork.”
Concerns raised in the qualitative open-ended responses further focused on the 
disadvantages presented by a home-learning environment. Specifically, 17 percent of 
educators mentioned parents and/or caregivers of learners being unable or unwilling to assist 
with learning for various reasons. It was further noted by 23 percent of teachers that parents 
and/or caregivers had feelings of fear, anxiety, and stress, which then negatively contributes 
to a conducive home learning environment.
QUESTION 3: WHAT PSYCHOSOCIAL AND PRACTICAL SUPPORT 
CAN BE PROVIDED TO TEACHERS AND LEARNERS TO HELP 
REDUCE THEIR STRESS, AND SUPPORT THEIR ABILITY TO 
TEACH?
WHAT KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PRACTICAL SUPPORT WILL HELP TO REDUCE 
TEACHERS’ COVID-19 RELATED STRESS?
When asked what kind of psychosocial support can be provided to teachers to help them cope 
with teaching and learning during COVID-19, 46 percent of respondents said group sessions 
with other teachers, 42 percent wanted training on managing stress, and 40 percent requested 
training on how to support learners’ wellbeing. Providing learners with psychosocial support 
to help them cope with learning during COVID-19 was deemed extremely important by 68 
percent of respondents. 
A higher number of SMT members (53%) compared to teachers (39%) indicated that training 
on managing stress would help them cope with teaching during COVID-19. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
12
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
South Africa’s Foundation Phase learners have lost nearly 56 to 57 percent of school days in 
2020, relative to 2019, due to school closures and rotational schedules implemented for face￾to-face learning (Kotzé, 2021). In addition to these lost school days, 26 percent of teachers 
and SMT members note the problem of additional learner absenteeism. Alternate rotational 
schedules have continued into 2021, introducing the risk that learners will again lose at least 
half of their face-to-face school days in the 2021 calendar year. Based on international and 
local research it is estimated that for every one day of in-person teaching lost, at least 1.25 
days of learning is lost (Gustafsson and Nuga, 2020). However, objective evidence on how 
learner performance has been impacted in South Africa is very limited. The educators who 
responded to the survey were in unanimous agreement that the learners have already fallen 
behind, and notably behind. That is a disconcerting finding since teachers typically tend to be 
more optimistic about learner performance than learning data reveals (Donovan, 2014). 
Further, existing evidence indicates that children typically do not easily “catch up” on 
foundational skills such as early grade decoding skills (Ardington et al., 2020; Spaull and 
Kotzé, 2015). These gaps in foundational skills can hinder future learning and have long-term 
implications for access to income and breaking cycles of poverty (Moses et al., 2017). 
The changes to school routines and new demands imposed on teachers due to COVID-19 
disruptions have placed a psychosocial burden on teachers. The survey shows that teachers 
have high levels of psycho-social stress and worry. Teachers, Head of Departments (HODs) 
and Principals have received some support from their colleagues, however more support is 
required to manage the risk of teacher burnout, teacher absenteeism, and teacher turnover 
(UNESCO, 2020). 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
13
Based on these findings, we provide nine recommendations. 
Recommendation 1: Use data and contextual considerations to reflect on the 
benefits and challenges of rotational learner attendance schedules. Continued 
loss of face-to-face teaching and learning, due to school closures and rotational 
schedules, will further hamper learning of foundational numeracy and literacy skills, 
which will have severe implications for children’s development and future life 
outcomes. The DBE, together with their key stakeholders, should consider the 
evidence on the susceptibility of children and adolescents to SARS-CoV-2 (Mccarthy 
et al., 2021), together with concerns about the future-life impacts of constrained 
learning trajectories (Moses et al., 2017).
Recommendation 2: Identify community afterschool homework facilities to 
support out-of-school learning. Learners require additional opportunities to catch up 
on lost learning. Leveraging existing infrastructure such as empty classrooms in the 
afternoons, libraries, or community facilities for afterschool homework or learning 
development centers could augment opportunities for children to learn and read. 
Volunteers could be recruited and trained to read to, or read with, children. 
Recommendation 3: Develop a multi-modal national remedial program that
informs a media strategy to support home learning. Learners are behind and in 
response many organizations have developed resources to support learning at home. 
For example, UNICEF has created grade-specific learning content for radio and 
television 2 dissemination. Three things would be necessary to maximize such 
resources: First, the resources should be integrated into a learning program so that a 
less fragmented offering is available. Second, buy-in from teachers is required to 
ensure this can become a supportive tool for themselves and for parents. Thirdly, the 
offering should encourage both oral and written learning support. In Foundation Phase 
especially, learners need access to written support material and opportunity to read 
and write regularly. 
Recommendation 4: Develop resources and tools to support effective 
supervisory home support to learners who need to complete parts of their DBE 
workbooks outside of school. Homework plans that integrate with revised annual
teaching plans (ATPs) and the DBE workbooks could be developed to help ease the 
 
2 https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/stories/new-unicef-south-africa-education-covid-19-case-study
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
14
burden of schools having to craft appropriate guidance to parents. Making such 
resources available in low tech, scalable and easy to share format, would be essential.
Recommendation 5: Ensure that reading resources are readily accessible to 
support home learning. Provide fiscal resources to ensure reading resources are 
accessible to learners in every home. Promising strategies include making reading 
anthologies available to learners or making open-source stories accessible to 
households through partnerships with print media.
Recommendation 6: Document successful school strategies used to address 
the various COVID-19 disruptions and challenges, and share widely. 
Recommendation 7: Maintain COVID-19 protocols in the schools to make 
educators feel safe, but also encourage opportunities for peer support. Although 
educators are exposed to COVID-19 not only in schools, the DBE and school 
communities and school stakeholders should continue to take all possible steps to 
ensure that COVID-19 protocols are maintained in the school environment. 
Recommendation 8: Support peer-to-peer support amongst teachers. Provide 
guidance and link SMT members to resources that would help them create more 
opportunities for in-person and virtual peer support between teachers. The normal 
social interactions between teachers may have been affected by social-distancing 
protocols, but half of survey respondents suggested learning and sharing sessions with 
others as a feasible support strategy. Existing platforms, such as WhatsApp, or the 
DBE Teacher Connect platform3
, could be used to disseminate information.
Recommendation 9: Launch a campaign to strongly encourage and support 
psychosocial check-ins at different levels of the school. Psychosocial check-ins 
from line managers are a way of providing extra support (Akerstrom, Corin, Severin, 
Jonsdottir and Björk 2021). This includes check-ins between teachers and their HoDs, 
between SMT members and SGB members, and SMT members and their colleagues 
at circuit, district and provincial offices. Check-ins can help decrease feelings of 
isolation and increase feelings of support, so long as they focus on people’s emotions 
and feelings, rather than work-related deliverables. Such check-ins need not be long, 
can be implemented virtually and can therefore be done regularly and consistently.
 
3 https://www.ecubed-dbe.org/
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
15
INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT 
Khulisa Management Services is submitting this Preliminary Report on COVID-19 Research
to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), as part of the COVID-19 
study which is conducted along with data collection and analysis for the Early Grade Reading 
Study (EGRS), the Reading Support Project (RSP) and the Language Benchmarking study. 
Early 2020 marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 19, 2020, in response 
to this pandemic, the South African government closed schools and placed the country under 
“lockdown”. Learners only returned to school in August 2020 and since then, learners were 
only attending school on a 50 percent rotational basis resulting in a continuation of the further 
loss of contact teaching time. This report delves into the impact of COVID-19 on schools, 
teachers and school managers in the North West Province of South Africa.
BACKGROUND 
Despite the government of South Africa’s (GoSA) large investment in basic education, the 
country continues to face challenges providing a quality education in the majority of schools 
and its education indicators continue to lag behind those of its peers. In international 
comparative reading tests, South Africa consistently performs at the bottom with nearly 80
percent of Grade 4 students unable to read with comprehension in the language of their choice 
including home language (Howie et al, 2016). The GoSA considers education to be one of its 
highest domestic priorities and one of the greatest long-term challenges facing the country, as 
is evident in the National Development Plan which states its number one objective as 
improving the quality of basic education (DBE, 2013).
To support the GoSA, USAID/SA, awarded the PERFORMANCE Indefinite Delivery Indefinite 
Quantity (IDIQ) to Khulisa Management Services (Khulisa) to provide technical, analytical, 
advisory, monitoring, evaluation and related support services to assist USAID/SA in 
effectively diagnosing needs, and planning, designing, monitoring, evaluating and 
learning from interventions. PERFORMANCE helps to fill a critical research gap by 
providing rigorous analysis in target areas related to improving the quality of language and 
literacy skills of primary grade learners in South Africa and the region. Task Order 4 under 
PERFORMANCE has 12 objectives, two of which relate to COVID-19 Research. These are: 
• Objective 4 - Create COVID-19 evaluation questions and/or tool in close 
collaboration with the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and USAID; and
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
16
• Objective 12 - Analyze COVID-19 research data and produce final consolidated report 
on COVID-19 research.
AIM OF THE COVID-19 RESEARCH
As noted, students in the Foundation Phase of education (Grades R-3) returned to school in 
August 2020, after missing three to four months of “in person” schooling since the start of 
COVID-19. After returning to school, teaching and learning continued to be affected by the 
implementation of rotational time tabling. Whilst lost time is a severe threat to the attainment 
of educational outcomes, this research also explores whether the psychosocial impacts of 
COVID-19 have affected the degree to which teachers can teach, learners can learn, and 
parents can support. The three central evaluation questions are: 
1. How much has teaching and learning been disrupted due to COVID-19?
2. Has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the psychosocial wellbeing of teachers, parents,
and learners to such an extent that their ability to teach/learn or support learners has 
changed?
3. What psychosocial and practical support can be provided to teachers and learners to 
help reduce their stress, and support their ability to teach?
The data sources that inform the COVID-19 research include:
Computer Assisted Telephonic Interview (CATI) survey on COVID-19 with 
Teachers/Principals and SMTs - 20 questions (excluding demographics) in 
January 2021: Collect data focused on psychosocial well-being of individuals 
and their ability to pursue their duties. GeoPoll SMS short code survey: to 
obtain phone numbers from parents in order to administer CATI survey. 
This preliminary report draws only on data from the CATI survey with teachers and SMT 
members. However, it is anticipated that a final report on the COVID-19 research will also 
consider other data sources. These are: 
Computer Assisted Telephonic Interview (CATI) survey on COVID-19 with 
parents: 20 questions (excluding demographics) to Parents in early (May 
2021): Collect data focused on psychosocial wellbeing of individuals and their 
ability to support their children during and after school closures. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
17
Contextual tools for Impact Evaluation (include questions in contextual 
tools): To collect data that will be directly linked to learner assessments 
conducted for impact evaluation. The contextual tools include: Teacher 
Questionnaire, Principal Questionnaire, HOD Questionnaire (for Foundation 
Phase HOD), and School Functionality Tool 
Learner COVID-19 Questionnaire (different from learner assessment): to 
gather insights from the Grade 4 and 7 learners on how COVID-19 affected life 
at home and at school. 
DBE Key Informant Interview Guide (to use with DBE officials): to collect data 
focused on psychosocial wellbeing of individuals and their ability to support 
schools (teachers and principals) and their perspective on how COVID-19 
affected schools, teaching and learning. 
RSP Implementation evaluation: in a sample of 60 schools selected from the 
implementation evaluation, included questions into teacher and principal/SMT 
surveys, classroom observations and a school functionality tool to understand 
how COVID-19 is affecting teaching and learning in those school environments. 
The following section of this report briefly explores the literature which frames the evaluation 
questions and establishes the appropriate sub-questions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems 
Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) provides an 
approach for exploring the effects of the 
COVID-19 school disruptions on individuals 
and their functioning within the school. The 
theory broadly explores how the layers of 
environment form a larger ecosystem and 
impact directly on a person’s actions. All 
layers of this ecosystem have been severely 
disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, 
particularly at microsystem (e.g., school)
level. These effects are felt deeply by the educators parents and children involved. A 
principal’s or teacher’s individual wellbeing may affect their ability to provide EGR teaching 
Figure 1 Bronfenbrenner Ecological System’s Theory 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
18
and learning activities in the school setting upon reopening, as well as during the school 
closure period when learning was expected to take place in the home setting. The wellbeing 
and ability of parents to provide support to learning activities during the school closure time 
may influence learner outcomes, and similarly, learners’ wellbeing may affect their ability to 
learn. 
UNDERSTANDING SCHOOL DISRUPTIONS 
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted schooling considerably. The first most obvious disruption 
is to teaching time. Learners did not go to school for a period of four to five months. Schools
resumed in August 2021, but most learners were still only attending schools on a 50 percent
rotational basis to allow for adequate social distancing to be implemented. Loss of in-person 
teaching time may also have occurred due to teacher absenteeism, learner absenteeism, and 
additional closures when a positive COVID-19 case was reported at school. Protocols for 
screening learners and staff before they enter schools may have caused delays to the start of 
the school day.
However, the COVID-19 disruption in schools involved more than the loss of teaching time.
Without any training or extra resources, educators were expected to facilitate learning at home 
during the lockdown. When rotational attendance was introduced, teachers were expected to 
provide work for learners to do at home on the days that they were not attending school. 
Standard operating procedures introduced by the DBE required substantial changes to the 
routines of schools and behaviors of individuals: Regulations required schools to arrange
classrooms differently; mask-wearing and hand sanitizing became part of the school day; 
routines such as receiving learners were changed. After-school activities and sport were 
halted. Social interaction among teachers and among learners were reduced to allow for social 
distancing, and reducing the likelihood of workplace transmissions. All these changes have 
placed enormous demands on teachers. More than half of the surveyed educators indicated 
that the COVID-19 protocols have made it more difficult to do their job (55%) and 64 percent 
of the surveyed educators indicate that they were nervous or stressed by COVID-19 fairly or 
very often. 
In addition to the loss in teaching time, the alteration of school routines and changes in social 
interactions, changes to the curriculum were also implemented. The Curriculum was “trimmed”
by the DBE and Annual Teaching Plans (ATPs) relaxed the pacing requirements. At the 
Foundation Phase, the DBE suggested that schools spend more time on core concepts in 
Mathematics, Home Language and English First Additional Language (EFAL). They were 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
19
guided to reduce the time spent on Life Orientation. However, decisions on which topics to 
include or exclude were devolved to teachers - introducing the risk that curriculum 
implementation would be widely variable (Hoadley, 2020). 
The delivery of curriculum may also have been affected where teachers were reassigned to 
teach other grades and subjects than normal, to fill in for colleagues that were working from 
home due to comorbidities. 
DEFINING “PSYCHOSOCIAL WELLBEING”
The adjustment to new practices, the uncertainty around the schooling calendar, fear of getting 
infected and the loss of social support have left many people more anxious that normal. It is 
expected that the changes in schools, together with additional stresses such as illness and 
loss of income in households may have affected learners, parents / guardians and educators’
psychosocial wellbeing to such an extent that their ability to teach, support and learn may have 
been adversely affected (UNESCO, 2020).
4
This study focuses on psychosocial wellbeing rather than only on the social-emotional effects 
of the COVID-19 school disruptions. This choice is based on the understanding that that a 
psychosocial approach recognizes that individuals live within and are influenced by their 
context. There is a dynamic interplay between the psychological and social worlds in which 
individuals exist.
5 The ability of individuals to function - adapt and to “self-manage” (Huber et 
al. 2011) - within this dynamic context is important. A socio-ecological framework helps 
illustrate the dynamic context of an individual within their micro-, meso- and exo-system (see 
figure 1).
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) indicates that wellbeing can be simply described as 
“judging life positively and feeling good” and can also provide a common metric that helps 
compare the effects of policies or in this case, the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals and 
their ability to function.6 Measuring wellbeing is subjective and relies on self-reporting and a
number of existing measures are available. Psychosocial refers to the dynamic relationship 
between internal psychological processes and external social processes. This interaction 
generates a state of psychosocial wellbeing when it leads to self-esteem, self-respect, and 
self-reliance (psychological processes), the mental health to function to a person’s fullest 
capacity and cope with normal stress (a psychological state) and the ability to engage in 
 
4 UNESCO, 2020. Supporting teachers in back-to-school efforts. Guidance for policy-makers
5 USAID, Thogomelo Project, 2010
6 https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
20
meaningful and effective relationships with others – including public institutions (a social 
process) (Attah et al., 2016). 
The role of schools on children’s lives have long been documented and researched. 
“Schooling does matter greatly. Moreover, the benefits can be surprisingly long lasting”
(Rutter, 1991). It is crucial to appreciate that these long‐term benefits rely on both effects on 
cognitive performance (in terms of learning specific skills, improved task orientation, and better 
persistence) and effects of self‐esteem and self‐efficacy (with respect to better attitudes to 
learning, raised parental expectations, and more positive teacher responses because the 
children are more rewarding to teach). In some circumstances positive school experiences of 
both academic and non‐academic kinds can have a protective effect for children under stress 
and living otherwise unrewarding lives. These last points remind us once again that school
provides a set of a social experiences for children as well as a place for scholastic learning, 
and that effective schools have both aspects of children’s lives as part of their goals (Rutter, 
1991).
There is also a growing body of literature which establishes the links between students’ social￾emotional functioning and their academic success and show that interventions focused on 
improving social-emotional functioning are linked to academic gains (Suldo et al., 2013).
Psychosocial wellbeing are key concerns for our care and development of young people
(McLaughlin, 2018). During COVID-19, the social lives of children have changed and their 
sense of belonging which has long been identified as having an impact on academic, 
psychological, and social outcomes are likely to have been affected (Allen et al., 2018).
The home environment and parent-child relationships also play an important role to support
academic achievements (Chohan & Qhadir, 2013; Thida, de Gruiter & Kuppens, 2020). Thus, 
understanding how parents have been impacted by COVID-19 is an important aspect of this 
research. Exploring how parents have engaged with learning in the home during lockdown is 
important as parental involvement has been found to have a positive impact on learning 
outcomes (Harris & Goodall, 2008). The relationship between learners and teachers and the 
impact on learning outcomes is also well documented. Research has shown that positive, 
supportive teacher-student relationships are linked to fostering desirable socio-emotional, 
behavioral, and academic outcomes (Hamre & Pianta, 2006; White & Kern, 2018), and protect 
children at risk for school failure (Ladd & Price, 1987). Therefore, teacher’s psychosocial 
wellbeing is also central to learning outcomes, and this research explores both teachers’ 
psychosocial wellbeing and their engagement with parents. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
21
For the purposes of this study, the following dimensions of psychosocial wellbeing have been 
explored: 
• Emotional: emotions, feelings and internal reactions to COVID-19 and changed school 
or home context
• Cognitive: Psychological or mental thoughts
• Social: extent and quality relationships and social interactions within the school context 
(principal – teacher – parent)
• Behavioral motivation/Functionality: flexibility to deal with changed teaching and 
learning practice
These dimensions have also been explored within a specific time context: the period during 
COVID-19 school closures (March to August 2020) and when schools re-opened and provided 
schooling (September to December 2020). 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
To mitigate the effects of COVID-19 school disruptions in the future, it is critical to gather 
insights from principals, teachers and parents on how teaching and learning can be supported 
and how any learning losses (days lost and learner outcomes) can be addressed. This
research is designed to investigate how COVID-19 affected: schooling (loss of school days, 
relationships, and management); curriculum delivery (planned versus amended versus
actual); teaching and learning performance; the extent of alternative provisions/learning at 
home; and the psychosocial effects of COVID-19 on individuals’ emotions, thoughts, 
relationships, and ability to function (within the context of teaching and learning). Thus, the full 
set of evaluation questions and sub-questions include: 
1. How much has teaching and learning been disrupted due to COVID-19?
1.1 How much contact time did learners lose due to the COVID-19 school disruptions in 2020?
1.2 What response was implemented by schools, teachers and parents to support learning during 
the lockdown period, and after schooling resumed?
1.3 How much non-contact teaching did schools and teachers deliver during the lockdown period, 
and after schooling resumed?
1.4 How much non-contact learning did learners do during the lockdown period, and after schooling 
resumed?
1.5 Which modalities were most feasible to facilitate non-contact learning during the lockdown 
period, and after schooling resumed?
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
22
1.6 To what extent did teachers cover the standard and trimmed EGR curriculum covered for the 
2020 academic year, and how does this compare to business as usual?
1.7 What effect has the COVID-19 school disruptions had on early grade reading learner 
performance in 2020?
2. Has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the psychosocial wellbeing of teachers, parents and 
learners to such an extent that their ability to teach/learn or support learners has changed?
2.1 What about the COVID-19 pandemic worries teachers, parents and learners most?
2.2. What is the level of stress experienced by teachers, parents and learners due to COVID-19 
pandemic?
2.3 Did teachers, parents and school principals feel supported to deal with the stress caused by the 
COVID-19 disruptions to school?
2.4 Has the level of stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic affected the ability of schools, 
teachers and learners to teach / learn
3. What psychosocial and practical support can be provided to teachers and learners to help 
reduce their stress, and support their ability to teach?
3.1 What kind of psychological or practical support will help to reduce their COVID-19 related 
stress?
3.2 What kind of psychological or practical support do schools feel most able to provide?
Not all of these questions are answered in this preliminary report. All questions will be 
answered in the final report.
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 
This preliminary report draws on data from the educator COVID-19 survey, which was a 
computer aided telephonic interview (CATI) that collected responses from 439 teachers and 
SMT members from 197 quintile 1 to 3 primary schools in two districts in North West Province. 
The educators in the sample largely comprise Grade 1 to 3 teachers (n=331). SMT members 
including Foundation Phase HODs, Principals and deputy principals were also included 
(n=108). The survey was implemented between the January 22 to 30, 2021 prior to the 
commencement of the 2021 academic year and in the midst of a “second wave” of COVID-19 
infections, which resulted in the DBE delaying schools reopening for two weeks. The survey’s 
timing could have affected the data. First, responses about the degree to which educators 
reported feeling in control and able to cope with the stress of COVID-19 could have been 
negatively biased by the uncertainty about school reopening in 2021. Second, educators’ 
perceptions on learning losses were based on learner information gleaned prior to the two￾month long summer break - a period during which these losses could have been amplified. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
23
This section provides more detail about the instrument design, the sample, the survey 
methodology and analysis. The section concludes with a reflection on the response rates 
and the implications for generalizing the findings from this study. 
INSTRUMENT DESIGN 
Khulisa, together with the DBE and USAID, refined the research questions proposed in the 
Study Protocol and Methodology plan, and then set out to craft survey questions that could 
respond to each of the three COVID-19 research questions, and the sub-questions. The 
questions were reviewed together with GeoPoll who were contracted to collect the data. The 
review process included initial scripting of the survey instrument into GeoPoll’s standard 
format, followed by an iterative process of edits and finalizations, and finally translation to 
Setswana. GeoPoll’s technical team then performed programming and internal testing to 
prepare the survey for launch on the GeoPoll app.
A first set of questions confirmed or collected biographic information from respondents: their 
name, the name of the school where they work, the district of the school, their designation, 
their gender, their age, the grade they taught in 2021 and the year in which they started 
teaching. A second set of questions investigated the response of schools during lockdown and 
after learners returned to schools in 2021. A third set of questions probed the perceptions of 
teachers regarding learners’ learning losses. Questions that were appropriate to the 
educators’ role (i.e., teacher or SMT member) were asked – somewhere asked to all 
educators, and some were just asked of SMTs members. 
The psychosocial wellbeing section is based on a fourth set of 22 survey questions. Most of 
these (14) were single response questions asked to all the respondents (teachers and SMT 
members). SMT members were asked four single response questions (regarding support felt 
from district officials, province and governing body and how COVID-19 related stress has 
impacted on their ability to manage schools) while teachers were asked two single response 
questions (regarding support received from principals and effect COVID-19 has had on their 
teaching). All respondents were asked what worries them most about COVID-19 and 
responses were ticked against present options that were not read out to respondents. Finally, 
one open-ended question was asked to all respondents on how they thought COVID-19 has 
affected learners’ ability to learn.
The survey included nine items drawn from the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) modified for 
COVID-19 (PSS10-C). The PSS10-C instrument was validated in adult populations in 
Colombia. However, in our sample, the internal consistency was found lacking. Cronbach’s 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
24
alpha for the 9 items of the scale were α = 0.53. The mean score across all respondents was 
19.05 with the lowest score being 0 and the highest 36.
7 Given the low reliability score, we 
reported on the individual items, rather than the overall stress scale score. 
SAMPLE
In order to conduct the telephonic survey, GeoPoll required Khulisa to provide a dataset with 
respondents and telephone numbers.8 Therefore, Khulisa provided GeoPoll with a dataset of 
teachers, principals and SMTs from the 229 schools that are part of the evaluation sample. 
To consolidate this dataset, Khulisa underwent the following process:
1. Contacted the foundation for Professional development (FPD), who are the 
implementers of the Reading Support Project to obtain the most up to date data they 
had in November 2020. This included:
a. the final list of project schools with phone numbers for principals/deputy 
principals; and
b. a list of all RSP teachers captured by all coaches, which they used to contact 
people for the training
2. Identified gaps in the dataset and filled them in with phone numbers collected 
through the principal and teacher survey data from the fieldwork conducted in the 
same 229 schools in 2018
3. Topped up missing phone numbers through phoning six schools for which Khulisa 
had not been able to retrieve any contact details. Each school was called individually 
to obtain the principal, HOD and teacher cellphone numbers.
4. Shared the consolidated dataset with the DBE for checking
5. Received an updated dataset from the DBE, after a representative called all schools 
and updated the phone numbers where available.
At the end of the process, the database comprised of 1715 mobile numbers, divided into the 
two subjects of research interest: teachers (n=1257) and principals (n=458).
Upon reception of the sample from Khulisa, GeoPoll cleaned the dataset. The goal of 
cleaning is to create a sample that only has unique entries, which requires the identification 
and removal of incomplete and duplicate numbers. First, all numbers are reformatted, so 
they are consistent (e.g., parenthesis and dashes are removed, they are converted to 
 
7 SD = 4.83
8 As specified in the Task Order proposal
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
25
numbers in excel, the country code [27] is separated from the main phone number, etc.). 
The reformatted main numbers are all then measured for length and numbers that are 
shorter or longer than nine characters are removed. At this point, the sample only contains 
complete numbers and GeoPoll checks for and removes duplicate entries. The final, cleaned 
dataset to be used had a total of 1443 (1219 teachers and 224 principals) numbers left.
Over the course of the fourteen-day data collection GeoPoll sent approximately 1,491 survey 
invitations via SMS to South African teachers and SMT members (e.g., principals, deputy 
principals, and head of departments) in Khulisa’s database. The SMS invitations yielded 
approximately 974 opt-ins to the survey for an initial response rate of 73 percent. Of those 
who opted-in, 57 (4%) were deemed ineligible due to age or no longer holding a teaching or 
SMT position. Of those eligible, 487 (36%) dropped-off at some point in the survey. 
ANALYSIS
In evaluating what the quantitative educator COVID-19 survey data tell us about teaching and 
learning disruptions, a largely descriptive approach has been used. In addition to providing 
responses for the total educator or SMT samples surveyed, responses are disaggregated by 
the respondent’s age, gender or role. For those in EGRS schools, we consider how educator 
responses to GeoPoll questions may vary by the overall Setswana reading performance of 
the school as reflected in 2018 mean Grade 4 oral reading fluency scores, and by the 
rural/urban location of the school. The open-ended qualitative responses were analyzed using 
thematic analysis. 
TRIANGULATION WITH OTHER DATA
The educator COVID-19 survey did not lean to answering all of the COVID-19 research 
questions – some of the questions will be answered in other data collection efforts which 
includes a parent COVID-19 survey, a learner COVID-19-questionnaire, district official 
COVID-19 interview, and a range of contextual tools which will be administered when the 
Khulisa fieldwork team visits schools later in 2021. The Khulisa team will use these additional 
data sources to triangulate the findings of the educator COVID-19 survey reported here. 
AN EDUCATOR LEVEL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE RATES 
GeoPoll were provided with a ‘sampling frame’ of 1443 mobile numbers for teachers or 
principals. Of the 1443 persons reflected in the sampling frame, 31 percent were successfully 
interviewed by GeoPoll. Specifically, 107 unique SMT members were surveyed and 332 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
26
unique teachers. Of the total realized educator sample, almost a quarter (24%) are Grade 1 
teachers, a further quarter (24 percent) are Grade 2 teachers, and 30 percent are Grade 3 
teachers as seen 
Figure 2.
In Table 1 to Table 3, we provide more clarity on educator response rates by the characteristics 
of the sampling frame. We highlight the following response patterns:
• Response rates differ very little by the role of the educator, but for those with missing 
information on their ‘role’, response rates are much lower (18%) (refer to Table 1). 
• Response rates are virtually identical in Dr. Kenneth Kaunda (KK) and Ngaka Modiri 
Molema (NMM) (refer to Table 2). 
• Response rates are slightly higher among Grade 3 teachers (36%) compared with 
Grade 1 (30 percent) and Grade 2 teachers (29%) (refer to Table 3). 
While there appear to be very few differences in response rates by these educator level 
characteristics, in the next discussion we highlight notable differences in response rates by 
school level characteristics. 
Table 1: Completed response rate by role of educators
Percent with 
completed survey 
response
Total “sampling 
frame” (n)
Educator 31.6% 987
Departmental head 30.8% 120
Principal 33.0% 224
Missing 17.9% 112
Total of Sampling Frame 30.7% 1443
Table 2: Completed response rate by school district in which educator works
Percent with 
completed survey 
response
Total “sampling 
frame” (n)
Dr. Kenneth Kaunda 30.7% 482
Ngaka Modiri Molema 30.7% 950
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
27
Total of Sampling Frame 30.7% 1432
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
28
Table 3: Completed response rate by grade taught by educator
Percent with completed survey 
response
Total “sampling frame” 
N
Principals (not asked grade taught) 33.0% 224
Teachers: Grade Missing 17.4% 109
Teachers: Grade = 1 29.7% 370
Teachers: Grade = 2 28.7% 369
Teachers: Grade = 3 36.1% 371
Total of Sampling Frame 30.7% 1443
Figure 2: Characteristics of the educator COVID-19 survey sample
A SCHOOL LEVEL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE RATES 
In this section we consider which schools are reflected in 1) the sampling frame of educator
mobile numbers provided to GeoPoll and 2) the schools in which educators that completed 
the educator COVID-19 survey work. This section highlights some aspects pertaining to 
selective response patterns by school characteristics and thus the non-representivity of the 
sample. 
School response rates 
The completed educator COVID-19 survey responses are for educators in 197 unique 
schools. Since 265 unique schools were reflected in the sampling frame of educator mobile 
numbers that were provided to GeoPoll, successful responses were therefore obtained from 
24% 24% 24%
30%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
SMT Grade 1 teacher Grade 2 teacher Grade 3 teacher
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
29
three quarters of the schools in the sampling frame. This school level response rate at 74 
percent is notably higher than the teacher/principal level response rate at 31 percent.
In quarter 4 of 2019, there were 1537 schools in North West Province reflected in the DBE’s 
Masterlist of Schools. Completed responses were obtained from educators in 13 percent of all 
schools in the North West province.
Although the educator sample is dominated by responses from Foundation Phase teachers 
(Grades 1 to 3 teachers), of those that self-report as being Foundation Phase teachers, they 
are located in only 156 of the 197 realized schools. 
Many of the mobile numbers for educators in the sampling frame were drawn from EGRS I 
schools. Table 5 identifies how responses at the school level vary by the treatment arm of the 
EGRS. 
• 229 (86%) EGRS I schools are reflected in the sampling frame of 265 unique 
schools. 
• In the completed survey sample, responses from educators in 165 EGRS I 
schools (72% of all EGRS I schools) were obtained.
• Responses by school were more likely to be obtained from educators in the 
parent treatment arm (78% of 50 schools) and the coaching arm (78% of 50 
schools) compared with the training (73% of 49 schools) and control arms (64% 
of 80 schools)
Table 6 shows the number of educator responses by school. Typically, 4 educators were 
surveyed per school as reflected by the median. In EGRS schools about 5 educators were 
typically surveyed per school. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
30
Table 4: Schools reflected in the educator COVID-19 survey in relation to the Masterlist of 
Schools and the “sampling frame”, by district
By North West Districts
All NW 
schools
Dr.
Kenneth 
Kaunda
Ngaka 
Modiri 
Molema
Bojanala Other
2019 Q4 Masterlist of 
schools
N 1537 208 439 528 362
‘Sampling frame’ of 
schools provided to 
GeoPoll
N 265 66 198 0 0
Percent of 
Masterlist
17% 32% 45% 0% 0%
Number of schools 
reflected in completed 
surveys from 
educators
N 197 50 147 0 0
Percent of 
school 
‘sampling 
frame’ 
74% 76% 74% 0% 0%
Percent of 
Masterlist 
13% 24% 33% 0% 0%
Source: Completed educator COVID-19 survey, Sampling frame to GeoPoll and Masterlist of Schools. Notes:
The name of districts assigned to schools vary across the Masterlist, EGRS and educator COVID-19 survey 
data. We use the district name as per the educator COVID-19 survey and EGRS lists, where there are 
discrepancies. 
Table 5: EGRS schools by district and treatment arm reflected in the sampling frame and 
completed educator COVID-19 survey sample 
By district By treatment
All NW 
schools
KK NMM Control Training Coaching Parents
‘Sampling 
frame’ of 
schools 
provided to 
GeoPoll
N 265 53 190 NA NA NA NA
2018 EGRS 
school list
N 229 176 53 80 49 50 50
‘Sampling 
frame’ of 
schools 
N 229 176 53 80 49 50 50
percent 
of 
school 
86 % 11% 3% N-A NA NA NA
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
31
By district By treatment
All NW 
schools
KK NMM Control Training Coaching Parents
provided to 
GeoPoll
‘samplin
g frame’
Number of 
schools 
reflected in 
completed 
surveys from 
educators
N 165 127 38 51 36 39 39
percent 
of 
EGRS 
schools
72% 72% 72% 64% 73% 78% 78%
Source: Completed educator COVID-19 survey, Sampling frame to GeoPoll and Masterlist of Schools. Own 
calculations. Notes: The name of districts assigned to schools vary across the Masterlist of schools, EGRS and 
educator COVID-19 survey data. We use the district name as per the educator COVID-19 survey and EGRS 
lists, where there are discrepancies. 
Table 6: Number of teacher/principal completed responses by unique schools in the survey
mean p10 p25 p50 p75 p90 min max N
Number of educator responses 
per school
5.4 1 3 4 7 10 1 15 265
Number of educator responses 
per EGRS school
6.1 3 4 5 8 11 1 15 165
Source: Completed educator COVID-19 survey. Own calculations.
RESPONSE RATES BY SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS
By merging across datasets, we identify additional school level response characteristics as 
reflected in Table 4 and Table 7:
• Completed responses are obtained from educators in 50 unique schools in Dr. Kenneth 
Kaunda (reflecting 24% of all schools in that district) and 147 unique schools in Ngaka 
Modiri Molema (33% of all schools in that district). Thus, the educator responses are 
likely to be more representative of the schools in Ngaka Modiri Molema than Dr.
Kenneth Kaunda. 
With respect to school quintile, the sampling frame consisted of educator mobile numbers only 
for those in quintiles 1 to 3 schools. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
32
• We find that the likelihood of responses was higher from quintiles 1 and 2 North West 
schools (24% and 33%) relative to those located in quintiles 3 schools (8%), partly due 
to the higher representation of quintiles 1 and 2 schools in the sampling frame of mobile 
numbers provided to GeoPoll. 
We also consider how response characteristics hold in a multivariate context. As seen in 
Appendix Table A 1 which is a linear regression model predicting which EGRS schools were 
represented in the completed educator COVID-19 survey responses, we find that EGRS 
school responses are: 
• less likely to be obtained from educators in quintile 3 EGRS schools (compared 
to quintile 1 EGRS schools) and/or those in EGRS schools in Dr. Kenneth 
Kaunda relative to Ngaka Modiri Molema districts;
• more likely to be obtained from educators in the parent control arm (relative to 
the control schools) and in EGRS schools with more educators; and
• less likely to come from those in rural EGRS schools. 
Table 7: School quintiles reflected in the educator COVID-19 survey data in relation to the 
Masterlist of Schools and the “sampling frame” provided to GeoPoll
By quintile
1 2 3 4 5 Private
2019 Q4 Masterlist of 
schools
N 519 303 486 130 12 85
‘Sampling frame’ of 
schools provided to 
GeoPoll
N 130 77 57 0 0 0
percent of 
Masterlist
25% 25% 12% 0% 0% 0%
Number of schools 
reflected in completed 
surveys from educators
N 97 61 39 0 0 0
percent of 
school 
‘sampling 
frame’
75% 79% 68% 0% 0% 0%
percent of 
Masterlist 
19% 20% 8% 0% 0% 0%
Source: Completed educator COVID-19 survey, Sampling frame to GeoPoll and Masterlist of Schools. Own 
calculations. Notes: The name of districts assigned to schools vary across the Masterlist, EGRS and educator 
COVID-19 survey data. We use the district name as per the educator COVID-19 survey and EGRS lists, 
where there are discrepancies. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
33
DISRUPTIONS TO TEACHING AND LEARNING
Like most countries around the world, South Africa experienced unprecedented disruptions to 
schooling as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were closed on March 18, 2020, 
which was followed by a phased approach to reopening schools for the remainder of the 
academic year (Mohohlwane et al., 2020). 
In this section, we explore what the educator responses in the COVID-19 survey tell us about 
school disruptions, how schools or educators responded to the pandemic and how this may 
have affected teaching and learning. We analyze responses to the COVID-19 survey that 
specifically pertain to following seven research questions: 
1.1 How much contact time did learners lose due to the COVID-19 school disruptions in 2020?
1.2 What response was implemented by schools, teachers and parents to support learning 
during the lockdown period, and after schooling resumed?
1.3 How much non-contact teaching did schools and teachers deliver during the lockdown 
period, and after schooling resumed?
1.4 How much non-contact learning did learners do during the lockdown period, and after 
schooling resumed?
1.5 Which modalities were most feasible to facilitate non-contact learning during the lockdown 
period, and after schooling resumed?
1.6 To what extent did teachers cover the standard and trimmed EGR curriculum covered for 
the 2020 academic year, and how does this compare to business as usual?
1.7 What effect has the COVID-19 school disruptions had on early grade reading learner 
performance in 2020?
RESEARCH QUESTION 1.1: HOW MUCH CONTACT TIME DID LEARNERS LOSE 
DUE TO THE COVID-19 SCHOOL DISRUPTIONS IN 2020?
To reopen schools in 2020, the DBE opted for two complementary models. The first was the 
phased-in approach to the returning of different grades and the second was a rotational model 
once grades had returned to school. A phased approach to grade return supported the trialing 
of methods for social distancing and other COVID-19 safety protocols, while rotational models 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
34
directly supported social distancing in schools (Kotzé, 2021).
9 The first grades to return to 
school were Grades 7 and 12, on June 8, 2020. Grades 6 and 11 were re-opened on July 6. 
However, due to rising national infection rates all grades were closed again for the week of 
July 27 - 30. This was followed by a second round of phased reopening, with all grades 
expected to be back at school on August 31, 2020. 
Accounting for temporary reopening and phase-grade approaches, Kotzé (2021) calculates 
that relative to 2019, between 44 – 97 days of school days were lost in 2020 for the different
grades. She notes that in the Foundation Phase grades specifically, 34-37 percent of official 
school days in 2020 were lost relative to 2019, due to closures and phased-in grade 
approaches to the return to school. However, when considering that most schools in resource 
constrained school environments followed rotational time-tabling schedules, with learners only 
attending on alternate days, this impacted on school days lost. After accounting for rotational 
schedules, it is estimated that in 2020, Foundation Phase learners lost between 56-57 percent
of school days relative to 2019 (Kotzé, 2021). This is much higher than even upper limits on 
estimates of the days learners lost between 17 percent and 43 percent of the “normal” number 
of school days during 2020, estimated by Van der Berg and Spaull (2020) and Mohohlwane
et al, (2020).
 
9 End of phase grades, such as Grade 7 and 12 were prioritized over other grades.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
35
As will be explained in the next section, for most schools (at least 93%) reflected in the COVID￾19 survey, alternative day rotational schedules were followed. Very little contact teaching 
took place during school closures since no online teaching was identified by 
respondents in 93 percent of the schools reflected in the survey. Therefore, 56-57
percent of school days lost in 2020 relative to 2019 represents a best-case scenario of lost 
contact teaching time in these schools for Foundation Phase learners.
Actual contact teaching time that individual learners 
lost due to COVID-19 school disruptions in 2020 
would have additionally been affected by individual 
learner and teacher attendance patterns, hours 
spent at school on days attended, and time-on-task 
when at school relative to 2019. Measuring this 
would therefore require access to detailed and 
accurate administrative records on learner and 
teacher attendance, identifying school timetabling 
schedules and observing time-on-task, which is 
beyond the scope of an educator telephone survey. 
Drawing on evidence from the NIDS-CRAM survey (the National Income Dynamics Study –
Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey, presented by Mohohlwane et al, 2020) suggests that in 
July 2020, learner attendance rates were lower than in normal times, even for those grades 
officially open. According to the General Household Survey (GHS) of 2018, the average daily 
absentee rate was two percent. According to evidence from the NIDS-CRAM survey, the 
lowest absentee rate during July 2020 was observed among Grade 12 learners, at 12 percent. 
That is, for Grade 12 learners, the absentee rate was about six times higher than usual in July 
2020. Evidence from the third wave of the NIDS-CRAM survey, presented in a more recent 
report by Mohohlwane et al. (2020), shows that attendance rates had returned to normal levels 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
36
by November 2020, with 98 percent of learners reportedly attending school in almost all 
grades. The authors caution, however, that this attendance rate overstates daily attendance, 
given that rotational timetabling was in place. 
Table 8: Total number of official teaching days in 2020
Grades Jan –
18 
March
June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Total:
2020
Total: 
2019
percent of 
school days lost*
Gr 7 & 12 46 14 20 20 21 17 17 155 199 22%
Gr R, 6 & 11 46 15 20 21 17 17 136 199 32%
Gr 3 & 10 46 10 20 21 17 17 131 199 34%
Gr 1 & 2 46 5 20 21 17 17 126 199 37%
Gr 4 & 9 46 15 21 17 17 116 199 42%
Gr 5 & 8 46 1 21 17 17 102 199 49%
Source: Kotzé, 2021. Notes: *relative to 2019
Table 9: Estimated number of days at school for learners after accounting for rotational school 
schedules
Grades Jan – 18 
March
June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Total: 
2020
Total: 
2019
percent of 
school days 
lost* 
Gr 7 & 12 46 7 10 10 11 9 9 101 199 49%
Gr R, 6 & 11 46 8 10 11 9 9 91 199 54%
Gr 3 & 10 46 5 10 11 9 9 89 199 56%
Gr 1 & 2 46 3 10 11 9 9 86 199 57%
Gr 4 & 9 46 8 11 9 9 81 199 59%
Gr 5 & 8 46 1 11 9 9 74 199 63%
Source: Kotzé, 2021. Notes: *relative to 2019
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.2 AND 1.3: WHAT RESPONSE WAS IMPLEMENTED 
BY SCHOOLS, TEACHERS AND PARENTS TO SUPPORT LEARNING AND HOW 
MUCH NON-CONTACT TEACHING DID SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS DELIVER 
DURING THE LOCKDOWN PERIOD, AND AFTER SCHOOLING RESUMED?
Research questions 1.2 and 1.3 are very similar, and difficult to disaggregate using the 
available COVID-19 survey data. For brevity’s sake, we address them together in this section. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
37
NON-CONTACT TEACHING ACTIVITIES DURING SCHOOL CLOSURES
Teachers and SMT members were asked about the types of activities they engaged in to 
support non-contact teaching during school closures in 2020. A list of possible options was 
read to the respondent as shown in Figure 3 and they could select multiple response options. 
We highlight the following results:
• The most commonly cited support activity for non-contact teaching10 was to 
send home “DBE workbooks with learners” (63%), followed by providing a 
“package of support in the form of learning materials in hard copy” (34%), providing 
“printed material” which parents collected and returned (28%), and providing a 
“package of support in the form of learning materials in soft copy [e.g., Sent through 
Email/WhatsApp]” (13%). 
• Only four percent (1% + 3%) of respondents used an online or virtual teaching 
approach such as using Skype, Zoom or Google Classrooms. Just five percent of 
respondents communicated to learners about radio or television classes. 
 
10 Multiple responses
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
38
• Also, it is noted that 13 percent of respondents indicated that there was no “support for 
learning at home”. 
• Responses vary little by respondent or school characteristics, although we note 
sending home DBE workbooks to learners was a more common practice (72%) for 
respondents in township EGRS schools in this COVID-19 survey sample than among 
respondents in EGRS schools in rural areas (59%) (see Table A 2). 
These results are indicative of how learners’ access to virtual or online teaching opportunities 
during lockdown was almost non-existent in the schools reflected in the COVID-19 educator 
survey. Furthermore, very few educators in the two North West districts encouraged learners 
to listen to radio or to watch educational programs on television. In a school level analysis of 
responses, the use of online or virtual teaching during school closures was apparent in 
just eight percent of 194 schools (see Figure 6). However, the results in Figure 3 are 
indicative of how many Foundation Phase children in the two North West districts may have 
had access to the DBE workbooks, and potentially other hard copies of material to support 
learning at home. The provision of DBE workbooks or printed materials was apparent in 
90 percent of 195 schools (see Figure 6). As explained in the next section, self-reported 
responses from educators also suggest that most gave homework to learners during school 
closures. Given almost no engagement with schoolteachers during lockdown, learning at 
home may have been highly dependent on whether parents or caregivers encouraged learners 
to use their DBE workbooks or printed materials at home.
Figure 3: Which of the following activities were done to support non-contact teaching and 
learning in your school during school closure? (Read options)
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Multiple response options. Teacher and SMT responses. N = 439. 
63%
34%
28%
13%
13%
9%
5%
3%
2%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Sent home DBE workbooks with learners
Package of support in the form of learning materials in…
Printed material and parents collected it and returned…
No support was given for learning at home
Package of support in the form of learning materials in…
Provide tutorials or one-on-one sessions
Communicated about Radio or TV classes
Virtual teaching through Skype - Zoom/Google…
Other
Online teaching through for example. Google…
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
39
ROTATIONAL SCHEDULES WHEN LEARNERS RETURNED TO SCHOOL
All teachers and SMT members were asked about the model, with respect to rotations or 
timetabling, that the school adopted in Term 4 (of 2020) in response to COVID-19. 
As seen in Table 10, the most common model of schooling adopted in Term 4 of 2020, was 
attendance on alternate days of the week (51% of the educator sample) followed by a 10-day 
cycle of three days one week and two days the following week (39% of the educator sample). 
A further five percent indicated that stronger and weaker learners attended on separate days, 
while 1 percent indicated that girls and boys attended on separate days. Platooning, where 
half of the learners attend in the morning and the other half in the afternoon, was very 
uncommon (3%).
There are some differences in school models reported across SMT members and teachers 
and by EGRS reading performance. Compared with teachers, SMT members were less likely 
to report children attending in a 10-day cycle. In EGRS schools in the highest performing 
tercile11 with respect to average Grade 4 Setswana reading scores, educators are relatively 
more likely to report a 10-day cycle relative to educators in lower performing schools. 
It was also useful to repeat this analysis at the school level. We identify later in Figure 6, 93
percent of schools reflected in the survey an alternate day rotational model was identified by 
at least one respondent in the school. 
 
11 It is instructive to identity whether disruptions differentially affected schools depending on their 
performance levels. It is expected that poorest performing schools, which may also be less well 
managed, may have been disrupted more. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
40
Table 10: What model of schooling has your school adopted in Term 4 as a result of COVID￾19?
Total Role District Reading Score*
Total SMT Teacher KK NMM T1 T2 T3 NA
1) All children came back 
in fourth term 4% 6% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 6% 1%
2) Strong and weaker 
learners separate days 5% 6% 5% 4% 6% 5% 8% 4% 3%
3) and boys attend 
separate days 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3%
4) Alternate days of the 
week 51% 58% 49% 49% 52% 51% 58% 42% 55%
5) 10 day cycle [3 days 
one week and 2 days 
following week]
39% 25% 43% 42% 38% 38% 36% 44% 36%
6) Half the children attend 
in the morning and half 
in the afternoon
3% 5% 3% 1% 4% 4% 3% 4% 1%
7) Other 11% 17% 9% 12% 10% 10% 9% 10% 13%
88) Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
99) Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
N 439 107 332 104 335 117 116 115 91
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Multiple response options. Teachers and SMT members were asked 
this question. We find little difference by age of respondent or the EGRS location of the school to warrant these 
disaggregation. *Reading score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS 
reading score in Setswana in 2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. Results for non-EGRS schools, 
are shown in the “NA” column.
12
COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS DURING SCHOOL CLOSURES
Teachers were asked about how they communicated with parents during the COVID-19 school 
closures. As shown in Table 11, the most common approaches were sending “WhatsApp 
messages to parents” (37%), sending “school newsletters” (32%) and calling “parents 
directly or via WhatsApp” (20%). Just 7 percent of the respondents indicated that they 
sent homework to learners via parents. Only 14 percent of the total respondent sample 
indicated that they did not communicate at all with parents.13
 
12 An investigation of the degree to which schools with high reading scores and low reading scores differ 
in their COVID response, is useful, since both may relate to how well a school is managed. 
13 There are slight differences in preferred modes of communication with parents by the respondents’ 
age, gender, and their school location as seen in Table A 3. For example, teachers in township 
schools are more likely to communicate to parents via WhatsApp message than to call them directly, 
compared with teachers in rural schools.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
41
Compared with teachers, SMT communications with parents were less direct. About 59
percent of SMT members compared with 32 percent of teachers indicated that they sent 
newsletters to parents. Roughly a quarter of SMT members indicated that they sent WhatsApp 
messages to parents compared to 37 percent of teachers.14
Compared to before COVID-19 (Term 1), 31 percent of teacher respondents indicated that 
their communications with parents had become less frequent, 19 percent reported more 
frequent communications, 17 percent indicated no change in frequency as seen inTable 1215
Relative to older teachers, younger teachers between the ages of 20 and 39 were more likely 
to report that the frequency of their communication with parents had declined (40%) during 
COVID-19 school closures.
 
14 Use of WhatsApp messages by SMT members is more common among younger SMT members 
and for SMT members sampled from Ngara Modiri Molema district schools as seen in 
Table A 4. 
15 Although the referring question was a single response question, the associated responses are not 
mutually exclusive, making this somewhat hard to interpret.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
42
Table 11: In the midst of COVID-19 school closures, how did you communicate with parents 
of your learners? (Options not read out, multiple response option) 
Teachers
SMT 
members
1) I sent WhatsApp messages to parents 37% 24%
2) I called parents directly or via WhatsApp 20% 14%
3) I visited their homes 2% 3%
4) I used platforms such as google 
classrooms/ Microsoft teams/Zoom etc. 0% 3%
5) I sent homework to learners via parents 7% 7%
6) I sent school newsletters 32% 59%
7) I shared the timetable of online lessons 1% 1%
8) I did not communicate with parents directly 14% 11%
9)The school communicated with parents 14% 17%
88) Don't know 1% 1%
99) Refused 0% 0%
N 332 107
Source: Educator COVID-19 survey. Notes: Multiple response options. Teachers and 
SMT members were asked this question separately.
Table 12: During school closures, did the communication with parents change, when 
compared to before? (Term 1)
Total Age Group Role Reading Score*
Total 20-39 40-49 50-69 SMT Teacher T1 T2 T3 NA
No, there was 
no change 17% 15% 15% 19% 14% 18% 9% 22% 17% 22%
More 
frequently 19% 19% 24% 17% 16% 20% 21% 15% 19% 23%
Less 
frequently 31% 40% 29% 29% 32% 30% 34% 30% 31% 25%
More directly 5% 0% 7% 6% 9% 4% 9% 5% 4% 1%
Less directly 12% 9% 9% 14% 14% 11% 14% 8% 12% 13%
With more 
people 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 0% 2%
With fewer 
parents 13% 12% 12% 14% 11% 14% 11% 15% 16% 11%
Don't know 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 3% 1% 2%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N 439 68 123 248 107 332 117 116 115 91
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Single response options. Teacher and SMT responses grouped 
together. *Reading score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score 
in Setswana in 2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. Results for non-EGRS schools, are shown in the 
NA column.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
43
COMMUNICATION WITH TEACHERS DURING SCHOOL CLOSURES 
The SMT members were asked to reflect on how communication with teachers changed during 
the school closure period. Response options as shown in Table 13 were not mutually 
exclusive, dealing with both 
the frequency of 
communication and how 
direct this was. But the 
question responses only 
allowed for a single 
response. This makes the 
responses hard to interpret. 
Nevertheless, we can see that the most commonly selected option, by 43 percent of SMT 
respondents, was that they communicated ‘less directly’ with teachers. A quarter 
indicated that there was no change in communication. SMT members were more likely to 
report less direct communication with teachers if they were in EGRS schools in reading tercile 
3 (60%), and in EGRS township schools (58%). 
Table 13: During school closures, did the type of communication with teachers change, when 
compared to before?
Total District Reading Score* Type of Area
Total KK NMM T1 T2 T3 NA Township Rural
1) No - there was no 
change 24% 24% 24% 28% 15% 20% 38% 15% 23%
2) We communicated 
more frequently 11% 12% 11% 15% 7% 4% 19% 8% 11%
3) We communicated 
less frequently 19% 24% 18% 18% 22% 16% 19% 15% 20%
4) We communicated 
more directly 3% 0% 3% 0% 11% 0% 0% 4% 3%
5) We communicated 
less directly 43% 41% 43% 38% 44% 60% 25% 58% 43%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N 107 17 90 39 27 25 16 26 65
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Single response option only. SMT responses only. *Reading 
score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score in Setswana 
in 2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
44
RESEARCH QUESTION 1.4: HOW MUCH NON-CONTACT LEARNING DID 
LEARNERS DO DURING THE LOCKDOWN PERIOD, AND AFTER SCHOOLING 
RESUMED?
While we cannot deduce from the COVID-19 educator survey exactly how much work was 
actually done during the lockdown period or once schooling resumed in Term 4 of 2020, self￾reported educator responses are indicative of whether any work was done by learners at home 
or whether efforts were made by schools and educators to support learning at home. 
NON-CONTACT LEARNING DURING LOCKDOWN 
When asked about how much homework teachers gave to learners during school closures, 
many responded positively as seen in Table 14. Only 14 percent indicated they did not give 
homework. This suggests that 86 percent of respondents provided homework. Over a 
quarter of the respondents said they gave the “same amount as they would usually do in class” 
(26%) and a further 37 percent indicated 
about they gave “about half the amount as 
they would usually do in class.” In better 
performing EGRS schools in reading tercile 
3, educators are arguably more realistic 
about homework given – they are more 
likely to report providing “half the amount” 
of work as they would usually do compared 
to teachers in schools with weaker average home language reading scores. 
Yet, even if homework was given, the question remains as to whether learners did this work? 
In 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
45
Figure 4, we show responses to the question “Do you think that, in general, learners did most 
of the work that teachers gave them to do during school closures?” Of the total COVID-19 
educator survey sample, 38 percent responded “No”. A further eight percent indicated that 
they did not give any work to learners during school closures. A remainder of 54 percent
indicated that work was given during school closures and it was done by learners 
(either in full or partially). Although we note that the addition of the word “most” into the 
question phrasing makes the answers to this question hard to interpret. 
We find some interesting differences in educators’ perceptions of whether learners did work 
at home by the type of non-contact teaching methods adopted by educators or schools during 
the school closures. Source: Own calculations on COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: The percentage reporting learners did 
work at home during school closures is derived from the question “Do you think that, in general, learners did most of the work that teachers 
gave them to do during school closure?” 
shows the percentage of respondents indicating that learners did at least some of the work 
that they were given during the school closures by the type of non-contact teaching 
approaches used by the respondent. As expected, if no support was given for learning at 
home, then respondents are far less likely to report that learners did any work at home. Where 
teachers report use of digital technology – reflected in the provision of soft copy material (via 
email or WhatsApp) or the use of online or virtual teaching – learners are more likely to be 
perceived as having done the work that they were given. For the largest group of teachers 
that reported sending home DBE workbooks with learners, almost 60 percent indicated 
that learners did some of the work during the school closures. 
Table 14: How much homework did you give to learners during school closure as a result of 
COVID-19? (Read options)
Total Reading Score* Type of Area
Total T1 T2 T3 NA Town￾ship
Rura
l
About the same amount as they would 
usually do in class 26% 28% 30% 19% 28% 28% 23%
About half the amount as they would 
usually do in class 37% 36% 36% 42% 33% 40% 38%
About the same as two weeks of class 16% 15% 13% 16% 19% 12% 17%
They only did some reading 7% 3% 7% 11% 7% 10% 6%
I did not give learners any work to 
complete 14% 18% 13% 12% 13% 10% 17%
100
%
100
%
100
%
100
%
100
% 100%
100
%
N 332 78 89 90 75 81 169
Source: Educator COVID-19 survey. Own calculations. Notes: Single response option. Teachers only asked 
this question. *Reading score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS 
reading score in Setswana in 2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
46
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
47
Figure 4: Do you think that, in general, learners did most of the work that teachers gave them 
to do during school closure?
Figure 5: Percentage of respondents indicating learners did some work during the school 
closures, by non-contact teaching approaches used during the school closures. 
Source: Own calculations on COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: The percentage reporting learners did work at 
home during school closures is derived from the question “Do you think that, in general, learners did most of the 
work that teachers gave them to do during school closure?” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 20 40 60 80 100
Online or virtual teaching (N=15)
Tutorials or one-on-one sessions (N=40)
Communication about radio or TV classes (N=24)
Package of hardcopy learning materials (N = 151)
Package of softcopy learning materials (N=57)
Printed material and parents collected it and returned it to
me (N=123)
Sent home DBE workbooks with learners (N=278)
Other (N=9)
No support was given for learning at home (N=54)
Percentage reporting learners 
did work at home during school closures
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
48
NON-CONTACT LEARNING AFTER SCHOOLING RESUMED 
It was necessary for schools to implement approaches to non-contact learning even after 
children returned to school, due to the rotational school schedules adopted and thus reduced 
opportunities to learn. In particular, teachers should have ensured that learners were given 
work to do on the days they were not attending school. 
The COVID-19 educator survey asked teachers about how much Setswana and English 
reading and writing homework they gave to learners to complete on the days they were not at 
school. Interpreting the “quantities” of homework that are provided as response options to 
these questions is not straightforward, but one can imply from the responses whether any 
language homework was given and the nature of this homework. As seen in Table 15, about 
90 percent of teacher respondents reported having given learners Setswana or English 
homework. Of teacher respondents, it is suggested that 71 percent gave learners both 
reading and writing homework in Setswana and 67 percent gave both reading and 
writing homework in English. 
Table 15: How much Setswana/English reading and writing homework do you give to learners 
to complete on the days they are not at school?
Setswana English 
a) About the same amount as they would usually do in class 35% 28%
b) About half the amount they would usually do in class 37% 39%
c) I only give them some reading to do 18% 22%
d) I do not give learners any work to complete when they are not at 
school* 8% 9%
e) Other 2% 2%
f) Don't Know 1% 1%
100% 100%
N 332 332
Implied from responses: 
Gave any homework to learners (100%-d-e-f) 90% 89%
Gave reading and writing homework to learners (100%-d-e-f-c) 71% 67%
Gave Setswana and English language homework 89%
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Single response option. Teacher responses only. *There were 
two almost identical response options for Setswana that are condensed here to one category. 
As a summary of the discussion so far, Figure 6 provides a school level overview of non￾contact teaching and learning opportunities reported by teachers across 194 schools in the 
COVID-19 educator survey sample. Despite the limited use of online or virtual teaching 
methods (in just 8% of the schools reflected), non-contact learning opportunities were made 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
49
available during school closures through the provision of DBE or printed materials (in 90% of 
the schools reflected). Despite the implementation of alternate day rotational schedules in at 
least 93 percent of the schools, responses suggest that language homework was being given 
in nearly 80 percent of the schools. An unanswered question, however, is the extent to which 
learners were able to engage with materials and texts at home to advance in their learning 
and reading. Answering this requires objective learning data. 
Figure 6: A summary of indicators related to contact and non-contact teaching and learning 
across schools in the COVID-19 educator survey. A school level analysis. 
Source: Educator COVID-19 survey. Notes: 194 schools are reflected in this analysis. Educator level responses 
are used to identify schools where alternate day rotational school models or different non-contact teaching 
approaches are reported by at least one educator responding from the school. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 1:5: WHICH MODALITIES WERE MOST FEASIBLE TO 
FACILITATE NON-CONTACT LEARNING DURING THE LOCKDOWN PERIOD, 
AND AFTER SCHOOLING RESUMED?
In this section, we ascertain the feasibility of different approaches to non-contact learning by 
considering educator responses to the COVID-19 educator survey items on i) different 
modalities of non-contact learning used during school closures; ii) the feasibility of different 
approaches if schools were to close again; and iii) practical support or training identified as 
necessary to facilitate the use of different modalities of non-contact learning or teaching. 
8%
82%
69%
90%
80%
93%
79%
92%
18%
31%
10%
20%
7%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Any online or
virtual teaching
DBE
workbooks
sent home
Hard copy or
printed
materials sent
home
DBE / hard
copy / printed
sent home
Any homework
given
Alternate day
rotational
school model
Reading
homework in
Setswana and
English
Non-contact learning opportunities during school closures When schools reopened
Yes No
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
50
We outline two major findings: 
• The use of hard copy material and DBE workbooks is and will continue to be the 
dominant mode of non-contact learning during school closures. 
• The limited feasibility and use of online teaching methods as a mode of non￾contact teaching or learning.
DOMINANT USE OF HARD COPY MATERIAL AND DBE WORKBOOKS AS MODES OF 
NON-CONTACT LEARNING
The use of DBE workbooks and printed materials given to learners to take home was 
the de facto approach to support learning at home in North West schools in the COVID￾19 educator survey sample. Teachers’ perceived feasibility of non-contact learning 
modalities for future school closures is also consistent with reported practices identified during 
the school closures of 2020. For nearly 80 percent of teachers and SMT members, 
sending home DBE workbooks is considered the primary method for non-contact 
learning for future school closures (see Table 16). Second to this is providing printed 
material. Around 58 percent and 61 percent of teachers and SMT members respectively 
indicate that providing printed material is key to supporting learning during school closures. 
These results highlight the continued importance of DBE workbooks as a structured 
tool to support learning in schools and in the home. They also imply that creating 
opportunities for children to learn during school closures may require the development of 
structure, tools, and plans to augment the educational value of workbooks and printed 
materials for learning at home. Bottlenecks with respect to printing hard copy material or 
distributing hard copy material or books for learning or reading at home should be identified 
and addressed. 
The COVID-19 educator survey data hints at a lack of printed materials at schools, or ability 
to print or restrictive costs of printing, as hindering teachers in resource-constrained school 
environments from providing non-contact learning opportunities to learners. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
51
Figure 7 shows responses to questions asking teachers about what practical support would 
help them improve their ability to teach (effectively) should the second wave of COVID-19 
result in school closures. These were multiple response questions, with ten different supports 
identified. In terms of a practical support for non-contact teaching, the most selected option by 
41 percent of teachers was the provision of “hard copy material”. 
Teachers were second most likely to select “training on the adjusting of ATPs (Annual 
Teaching Plans)” as a primary practical support required – this response was selected by a 
third of teachers.
SMT members were asked a similar question but in relation to what practical support would 
improve their teacher’s ability to teach. What is interesting, is that many SMT members 
recognize the need for teachers to consider new approaches to teaching. The most 
common option selected by SMT members in terms of practical support to improve teachers’ 
ability to teach during school closures was “training to adapt to change and identify new 
teaching approaches” – this option was selected by 43 percent of SMT members (see 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
52
Figure 7). This suggests that teachers could think differently or expand the possibilities of 
creating non-contact learning opportunities beyond just providing DBE workbooks or printed 
materials to learners. 
LIMITED FEASIBILITY OF ONLINE TEACHING METHODS 
One of the clearest results from the COVID-19 educator survey is that online teaching did not 
occur in the schools reflected in the sample. Just four percent of teachers responding to the 
survey reported that they used online teaching methods during the 2020 school closures (see 
Figure 3). This is not surprising given how few learners in these schools have access to 
computers or internet. 
However, 16 percent of teachers in the sample indicated that if school closures happened 
again, using an online (or internet) based teaching method would be feasible for them (see 
Table 16). SMT members are arguably more realistic in this regard, with only 6 percent
indicating that online teaching is a feasible method for their teachers if schools were to close 
again. 
Possibly due to the limited feasibility of implementing online teaching for learners in resource￾constrained environments, just 21 percent of teacher respondents chose “training on online 
teaching” as a practical support to improve their ability to teach during school closures as seen 
in 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
53
Figure 7. The feasibility of online teaching can also be explored by identifying whether some 
teachers in a school report using online or virtual methods, but others do not. There were four 
cases of schools in the sample where at least one but not all the teacher respondents in the 
school reported using online or virtual methods for non-contact teaching during school 
closures. If this is a feasible method for one teacher in a school, it may be feasible for more 
teachers. 
Table 16: If schools had to close again, which of the following teaching activities would be 
most feasible for you / your teachers?
Teacher
SMT 
member
Provide teaching using an online [internet] based method 16% 6%
Provide printed materials 58% 61%
Send home DBE workbooks 79% 79%
Don’t Know 3% 3%
Refuse 0% 0%
N 332 107
Source: Educator COVID-19 survey. Notes: Multiple response option. Teachers and SMT were asked this 
question separately. "All of the above" was also a response option. We add to options 1 to 3, the percentage
that respond "All of the above".
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
54
Figure 7: Practical support that would help teachers improve their ability to teach (effectively) 
if schools closed
Source: Educator COVID-19 survey. Notes: Multiple response options. Number of teachers in calculation = 322. 
Number of SMT members in calculation = 107. Teachers were asked the following question: “Should this second 
wave of COVID-19 result in school closures, what practical support would help improve your ability to teach (to 
teach effectively)? Please indicate all forms of support.” SMT members were asked the following question: 
“Should COVID-19 carry on into 2021, what practical support would help improve your teachers’ ability to teach 
(to teach effectively)? Please indicate all forms of support.”
RESEARCH QUESTION 1.6: TO WHAT EXTENT DID TEACHERS COVER THE
STANDARD AND TRIMMED EGR CURRICULUM COVERED FOR THE 2020 
ACADEMIC YEAR, AND HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO BUSINESS AS USUAL?
Acknowledging the large losses in school days due to COVID-19, the DBE reduced the 
curriculum that teachers and learners would be required to complete in the 2020 year. In their 
November 2020 article, Hoadley (p. 10-11) note that curriculum trimming was a temporary 
measure implemented in 2020. While the first round of trimming was not substantial, a second 
41%
33%
30%
25%
23%
21%
19%
16%
15%
11%
6%
4%
33%
39%
43%
21%
17%
28%
26%
17%
17%
17%
13%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Hard copy material
Training on the adjusting of ATPs
Training to adapt to change and identify new
teaching approaches
School visits by coaches or subject advisors
Subject meetings on the adjusted curriculum
Training on online teaching
Training on strategies to cope with home and
school environments
Using radio lessons
Development of tutorials
Curating material/accessing material
Other
Don’t Know
SMT member Teacher
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
55
round in July 2020 marked a shift toward focusing on the “core concepts” with decisions on 
what to include or exclude devolved to teachers. As such, trimming has become school-based 
and widely variable, with selection and pacing requirements relaxed. At the Foundation Phase, 
the DBE suggested that schools focus daily on core concepts in Mathematics, Home 
Language and English, but teach Life Skills or Life Orientation on alternating days. 
In the COVID-19 survey, educators were asked about whether they thought the trimmed 
curriculum was feasible to implement. Nearly two thirds agreed (responding “yes”) that it was 
feasible to implement (65%); a further 14 percent said it was “somewhat” feasible and 20
percent said it was not feasible to implement. Younger teachers aged 20 to 39 were less likely 
to think it was feasible to implement as compared with older teacher respondents. On average, 
teachers and SMT members shared similar views about the implementation feasibility of the 
trimmed curriculum. 
Table 17: Do you think the trimmed curriculum was feasible to implement? 
Total Age Group Role Reading Score
Total 20-39 40-49 50-69 SMT Teacher T1 T2 T3 NA
No 20% 28% 21% 18% 17% 19% 17% 17% 19% 30%
Somewhat 14% 22% 10% 15% 15% 16% 17% 13% 17% 11%
Yes 65% 50% 69% 67% 68% 65% 66% 70% 63% 59%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N 439 68 123 248 107 332 117 116 115 91
Source: COVID-19 educator survey Notes: Single response option. Teacher and SMT responses.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
56
RESEARCH QUESTION 1.7: WHAT EFFECT HAS THE COVID-19 SCHOOL 
DISRUPTIONS HAD ON EARLY GRADE READING LEARNER PERFORMANCE IN 
2020?
As we have shown, COVID-19 severely impacted on available contact teaching time at 
schools in 2020. The big question that remains unanswered is how negatively the disruption 
to schooling has impacted on learner performance. International education institutions 
propose thinking of lost school days in terms of learner trajectories, measuring how much an 
average learner learns in a year and then estimating the learning loss resulting from the 
pandemic (Mohohlwane et al., 2020). Gustafsson and Nuga (2020) propose a ratio of 1.25 for 
South Africa, meaning that for every day of schooling lost, learning will be reduced by one￾and-a-quarter days. Learning losses are expected to share a larger than one-to-one ratio with 
the amount of time learners were not attending school based on evidence from other forms of 
interruptions to schooling, whereby realized learning losses exceed the amount of learning 
that would have been lost under “business as usual” conditions. 
But these are merely proposed estimates of lost learning. We do not yet have objective 
evidence on how learner performance has been impacted. However, the COVID-19 educator 
survey is instructive for identifying educator perceptions about the disruptions that the 
pandemic has had on early grade learning. 
PERCEPTIONS OF READING DEVELOPMENT DECLINES
Educators were asked to describe their learners' reading level in terms of where they would 
normally be at this time of year. The clearest result emerging from Table 18 is that there is 
almost unanimous agreement that learners are far behind where they should be at this 
time of the year. Just five percent of the educator respondents indicate that learners’ reading 
levels were “about the same” compared with learners they had the previous year, implying 
that almost 95 percent of the sample are aware that learners’ reading development has 
digressed from its usual path.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
57
Of teacher respondents, 46 percent indicated that learners were about three months behind 
where learners usually are at this time of the year and 42 percent indicated learners being six
months behind where they usually are. Worryingly, five percent indicated that learners were 
more than a year behind where learners are usually at this time of the year. 
The dramatic impacts of COVID-19 are particularly evident in Foundation Phase teachers’ 
reports about how far learners are behind in their reading development. As shown in Figure 8, 
about 93 percent, 92 percent and 94 percent of surveyed teachers in Grades 1, 2 and 3 report 
that learners are behind. The extent to which learners are perceived to be behind is also very 
similar across the three Foundation Phase grade teachers. 
SMT members are slightly more optimistic about learners’ reading development than teachers. 
Educators in schools with average Setswana reading scores in higher performing terciles are 
slightly less optimistic about current reading levels than educators in schools in the worst 
performing reading tercile. There are few differences in overall responses across educators 
from EGRS schools in township compared with rural areas. 
As reading data is collected to obtain objective evidence on reading losses, we will be able to 
further explore how these perceptual responses relate to objective reading levels. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
58
Table 18: Compared to learners you had last year, how would you describe these learners' 
reading level in terms of where they should be at this time of year?
Total Role District Reading Score* Type of Area
Total SMT Teacher KK NMM T1 T2 T3 NA Town￾ship Rural
About 12 
months 
behind 
where 
learners 
are 
usually at 
this time 
of the 
year
5% 4% 6% 5% 5% 3% 6% 5% 7% 5% 5%
About 6 
months 
behind 
where 
learners 
are 
usually at 
this time 
of the 
year
42% 39% 43% 37% 44% 38% 42% 43% 46% 45% 41%
About 3 
months 
behind 
where 
learners 
are 
usually at 
this time 
of the 
year
46% 51% 44% 52% 44% 47% 45% 50% 41% 42% 48%
About the 
same
5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 9% 6% 3% 4% 7% 6%
Don't 
know 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N 439 107 332 104 335 117 116 115 91 107 234
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Single response option. Teacher and SMT responses. *Reading score 
reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score in Setswana in 2018. T1 = 
Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
59
Figure 8: Grade 1-3 teacher’s response to the question “Compared to learners you had last 
year, how would you describe these learners' reading level in terms of where they should be 
at this time of year?”
Source: COVID-19 educator survey Notes: N Grade 1 teachers = 106, N Grade 2 teachers = 107, N Grade 3 
teachers = 132. Teachers from 156 North West schools. 
4% 6% 6%
42%
46%
40%
45%
45%
46%
7%
4%
6%
3% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Don't know
About 12 months
behind where learners
are usually at this time
of the year
About 6 months
behind where learners
are usually at this time
of the year
About 3 months
behind where learners
are usually at this time
of the year
About the same
93% 
report 
learners 
behind
94% 
report 
learner
s 
behind
92% 
report 
learner
s 
behind
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
60
PERCEPTIONS ABOUT WHETHER LEARNERS WILL BE ABLE TO CATCH-UP 
LEARNING LOSSES 
Teachers were also asked whether learners would catch-up any learning losses from 2020 in 
2021. About 41 percent said yes (see Table 19), a quarter (25%) said “No”, and nearly a third 
(32%) responded “somewhat” or “maybe”. Just one percent indicated that they didn’t think 
there would be learning losses and therefore the question was not applicable.
We then disaggregate Foundation Phase teachers’ perceptions of whether learners will catch￾up any learning losses from 2020 to 2021 by how far behind they think learners are in their 
reading compared to where they usually would be. As seen in Figure 9, the perceived 
likelihood of catch-up is lower the further behind teachers think learners are in their reading. 
Of the largest group that think learners are three or six months behind where they should be, 
an almost equal third in each group think learners will catch-up. But compared to teachers 
who say learners are three months behind in their reading, teachers that respond that learners 
are six months behind are almost twice as likely to say that learners will not catch-up any 
learning losses (32% versus 18%) and they are also less likely to respond that learners will 
catch-up “somewhat” or that “maybe” there will be some catch-up (28% versus 48%).
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
61
Table 19: Do you think that learners will be able to catch-up any learning losses from 2020 in 
2021?
Total Age Group Reading Score* Type of Area
Total 20-39 40-49 50-69 T1 T2 T3 NA Town￾ship Rural
Yes 41% 38% 40% 43% 45% 40% 46% 32% 35% 48%
No 25% 41% 22% 21% 19% 30% 23% 28% 33% 20%
Somewhat / 
Maybe 32% 19% 35% 35% 35% 27% 28% 40% 28% 30%
Not applicable (I 
don’t think there 
were learning 
losses)
1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%
Don’t know 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Refused 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N 332 63 96 173 78 89 90 75 81 169
Source: COVID-19 educator survey Notes: Single response option. Teacher responses only. *Reading score 
reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score in Setswana in 
2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. 
Figure 9: Foundation Phase teachers’ perceptions of whether learners will catch-up learning 
losses from 2020 to 2021, by how much they think learners are behind in their reading 
compared to where they usually are.
Source: COVID-19 educator survey Notes: Grade 1 to 3 teacher responses only. N = 228. 
40%
32%
18% 17%
20% 29%
48%
67%
40% 34%
33%
17%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
About 12 months
behind where
learners are usually
at this time of the
year (N = 15)
About 6 months
behind where
learners are usually
at this time of the
year (N=102)
About 3 months
 behind where
learners are usually
at this time of the
year (N = 94)
About the same
(N = 12)
Refused
Don't know
Not applicable - no
learning losses
Yes
Somewhat / Maybe
No
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
62
PSYCHOSOCIAL WELLBEING OF TEACHERS 
The previous section presents initial data on how the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted 
schooling. Such disruption is likely to have resulted in considerable changes in the 
psychosocial wellbeing of teachers, learners, and their families. In this section, we use the 
COVID-19 educator survey results to understand the level of psychosocial stress that teachers 
are facing and explore some of the COVID-19 related worries they have. We investigate the 
following research questions: 
2.1 What about the COVID-19 pandemic worries teachers and SMT members the most?
2.2. What is the level of stress experienced by teachers due to COVID-19 pandemic?
2.3 Did teachers and school principals feel supported to deal with the stress caused by 
the COVID-19 disruptions to school?
2.4 Has the level of stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic affected the ability of 
schools, teachers, and learners to teach / learn?
RESEARCH QUESTION 2.1: WHAT ABOUT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC WORRIES 
TEACHERS AND SMT MEMBERS THE MOST?
Source: COVID-19 educator survey Notes: Multiple response option. Spontaneous mention. All teacher and 
SMT respondents n=439
For educators, distress can stem from both the COVID-19 related health risks and the 
increased workload of teaching in new and challenging ways with inadequate training. This 
can lead to burnout, resulting in high rates of absenteeism, and may contribute to higher 
levels of teacher turnover (UNESCO, 2020).16 In this study, educators were asked what 
 
16 UNESCO, 2020. Supporting teachers in back-to-school efforts. Guidance for policy-makers
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
63
worries them most about COVID-19 and were encouraged to share multiple answers. Almost 
all (99%) of the respondents mentioned at least one worry. Educators mentioned worries 
related to personal health, and worries related to work. 
Figure 10: What worries you the most about COVID-19 and teaching at the moment? 
(Spontaneous mention)
Source: COVID-19 educator survey Notes: Multiple response option. Spontaneous mention. All teacher and 
SMT respondents n=439
More than a third of respondents (42%) said they worried about “getting infected” followed by 
21 percent expressing concerns about colleagues or family being infected. 
The most common work-related worries mentioned by educators were about learners not 
being able to catch up on their work (37%) and learners passing without having had enough 
instruction during 2019 (37 %). Almost a quarter of the educators (22%) shared that they 
were concerned about the workload for 2021.
In the qualitative open ended survey responses, educators expressed concern that the 
curriculum had not been covered: 
− Because of weekly rotation we didn't cover curriculum, learner's don’t come to school 
regularly due to virus (Teacher, 80)
− Affected them badly we could not cover the syllabus unlike the previous year (SMT, 
52)
1%
24%
20%
21%
42%
18%
22%
23%
37%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
No worries
Other
My family getting infected
My friends or colleagues getting infected
Getting infected
Learner drop-outs
The workload for 2021
The learners passing without having had
enough instruction this year
The learners not catching up with work
What educators are worried about in relation to COVID-19
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
64
− Work was not done, only formal assessments done (SMT, 437) 
− Most of the time we were teaching them the protocols of COVID-19 we were delayed 
(SMT, 241)
Some expressed the sentiment that learning losses may have occurred: 
− [COVID-19] Traumatized learner's… they went backwards. [We] had to redo all the 
work they forget the work and their parents don't help (Teacher, 420)
− [COVID-19] Took us back a lot… kids can't read at all (Teacher, 418)
And some teachers reflected on the possibility that important foundational skills may have 
been skipped: 
− [COVID-19] Affected them badly the phonics were not done which will be difficult for 
learners (Teacher, 47)
In January 2021, prior to the opening of schools, 18 percent of the educators in this survey 
mentioned learner drop-outs as one of their prominent worries.
17 In qualitative open-ended 
responses from educators, six percent of the interviewees spoke about learner drop-out
when asked how COVID-19 affected learners. Educators often spoke of absenteeism and 
drop-out together. Fear was often mentioned as one of the reasons learners drop out: 
− Most of the learners fear coming to school, other drop out...they are struggling 
(Female, 238)
− Most the learners were afraid to attend school because of COVID-19 and also parent 
take them out because of pressure they have about COVID-19 some they were coming 
twice a week (Female, 245)
Two responses suggested that patterns in rural areas may be different than in less rural 
areas: 
− Some learner couldn't come to school anymore especially those from farms and 3 
learners passed on then 16 teachers were affected (Female, 268)
− It has affected them a lot...most of the learner's did not come back. Especially in this 
rural area (Male, 145)
The concern among educators about dropout could be contextualized against data available
about caregivers’ worries from NIDS CRAM Wave 3 survey (published Feb 2021). The NIDS 
CRAM study notes that while overall rates of worry about learners’ returning to school have 
declined (from 72% of households in July 2020 to 52% in November 2020) half of caregivers 
 
17 On average, respondents identified 2.08 issues they were worried about, with a range of between 0 
and 7SD = 1.44
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
65
in the country are worried about children returning to school. While the sampled data for the 
educator COVID-19 survey and the national NIDS CRAM data are not directly comparable, it 
appears that both data sets highlight drop-out as an area of concern. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 2.2: WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF STRESS EXPERIENCED 
BY TEACHERS DUE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC?
International literature show that the COVID-19 pandemic does not only threatened physical 
health of persons; the mental health of individuals is also affected by the low predictability 
and uncertainty associated with the pandemic (Lv. et al., 2020). Stark et al. (2020) concur by 
stating that the impact on individuals’ mental health is a public health challenge. According to 
the results of a study conducted by Lv et al. (2020), the pandemic may have had 
psychological consequences such as an increase in negative emotions such as depression 
and anxiety. These feelings of uncertainty, panic and anxiety related to the COVID-19 
pandemic could exacerbate and prolong social and health inequalities within countries 
(Ataguba, 2020; Naidu, 2020).
The educator COVID-19 survey could not give an indication of the degree to which 
educators’ stress has changed in response to COVID-19, since no baseline data existed. 
However, the survey provides some insights into the COVID-19 related stress using nine 
items adapted from the Perceived Stress Scale-COVID-19 (PSS-C-10). 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
66
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Respondents were asked nine questions phrased as in this 
example: “How often have you been upset that things out of your control during COVID-19?” Four items were 
phrased positively, five items were phrased negatively. Respondents could choose: Never, almost never, 
sometimes, fairly often, very often and don’t know. For the purposes of interpretation, we group the responses 
“fairly often” or “very often” together. Data reported are for all teacher and SMT respondents. n = 439. 
As expected, many respondents reported feeling stressed by COVID-19, and this was 
mostly in relation to their sense of control over the situation. Worryingly, only 37 percent of 
the surveyed educators felt that things are going well “fairly often” or “very often” during 
COVID-19. 
In qualitative open-ended responses from educators, some expressed fear and difficulty with 
adjusting. Some examples are shared below:
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
67
− “Everyone is scared” (Teacher, 106)
− “Learners were not able to learn, and teachers were also not so well” (Teacher, 225)
− “When they [learners] came back, they were shocked and also us teachers” (Teacher,
432)
− “The new normal was difficult...no parent involvement...” (SMT, 329)
More than 40 percent of respondents selected “very often” or “fairly often” for the following 
items investigating the frequency of negative emotions:
→ How often have you been nervous or stressed by COVID-19? (64%)
→ How often do you feel unable to adequately prevent COVID-19? (51%)
→ How often do you feel as if something serious will happen unexpectedly because of 
COVID-19? (50%)
→ How often have you been upset that things are out of your control during COVID-19? 
(47%)
→ How often do you feel that you are unable to control the important things in your life 
due to COVID-19? (44%)
Fewer than half of the respondents selected “very often” or “fairly often” for the items 
investigating positive emotions. Almost half of respondents felt that they were able to handle 
their personal problems during the COVID-19 pandemic (48%); 45 percent responded that 
they had everything under control in relation to teaching and learning during COVID-19; and 
47 percent felt they could control the difficulties of parenting/teaching/managing a school due 
to COVID-19. 
There were differences in responses to two questions on the PSS-C between younger (<34) 
and older respondents (35+). Older respondents seemed to be coping better:
→ “How often have you been upset that things are out of your control during COVID-19?” 
with 28 percent of younger respondents compared to 11 percent of older respondents 
responding “Fairly often”
→ “How often do you feel that you are unable to control the important things in your life 
due to COVID-19?” with nine percent of younger respondents compared to 18 percent
of older respondents responding “Fairly often”
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
68
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Respondents were asked nine questions phrased as in this 
example: “How often have you been upset that things out of your control during COVID-19?” Four items were 
phrased positively, five items were phrased negatively. Respondents could choose: Never, almost never, 
sometimes, fairly often, very often and don’t know. For the purposes of interpretation, we group the responses 
“fairly often” or “very often” together. Data reported are for all teacher and SMT respondents. n = 439
The high levels of stress reported by participants are not surprising. While there is no baseline 
of stress levels to compare against, the survey results tell us that many teachers’ stress levels
are high and thus their psychosocial wellbeing are fragile. Some show more resilience in the 
multilayered ecological systems in which they operate, but support and mitigation are critical 
to help educators reduce their stress and support their ability to teach. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 2.3: DID TEACHERS AND SCHOOL PRINCIPALS FEEL 
SUPPORTED TO DEAL WITH THE STRESS CAUSED BY THE COVID-19 
DISRUPTIONS TO SCHOOL?
Support from Principals
Respondents who were not principals were asked the degree to which they felt supported by 
their principal to continue teaching during school closure. The Figure below depicts the results. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
69
Figure 11: Levels of Support from Principals
Source: Educator COVID-19 survey. Notes: Single response option. Read options. All respondents who were 
not principals n = 331 teachers and n=10 SMT members. 
Almost half of respondents (43%) felt that the support they received from principals was 
normal/as expected, while 36 percent said that it was more than normal/expected. On the 
other hand, 19 percent felt that they got no (9%) or limited support (10%) from their principals. 
This is a positive finding indicating that overall, most teachers felt supported by their principals. 
Further research should explore what kinds of support are most effective to mitigate stress. 
Support from School Governing Bodies (SGBs) 
SMT members (n = 107) were asked if they felt supported by their School Governing Body 
(SGB) during school closure. Like the results regarding principals’ support, most SMT 
members felt support. 76 percent felt normal/expected (43%) or more than normal/expected 
(33%) levels of support from the SGB. On the other hand, 23 percent felt that they got no (6
percent) or limited (17%) support from the SGB during school closures. Only 2 percent of SMT 
members reported that there was no functioning SGB at their school. This finding is interesting 
given that many quintile 1 to 3 schools are known to have SGBs that are not functioning 
optimally (Bayat et al., 2014). Bayat et al. quote one principal saying: 
− “I can list an impressive number of things they are involved with, but actually they do 
nothing, they have no capacity to do anything worthwhile” (p. 359)
Further research should explore which kinds of support SGBs can offer. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
70
Support from District Officials 
The DBE’s Action Plan to 2024 notes that districts, under normal circumstances, are not 
always able to provide the quality of support required, however principals tend to report high 
satisfaction with support from districts. For example, school monitoring survey results indicate 
that, on average, approximately 78 percent of all principals in the country are satisfied with 
district support services. Against these findings, in the educator COVID-19 survey, SMT 
members were also 
SMT members (n = 107) were asked if they felt supported by District Officials during school 
closure. Ten percent felt extremely supported, 20 percent felt very supported and 20 percent
felt moderately supported by District Officials. On the other hand, 29 percent felt that they 
were not at all (6%) or only slightly (17%) supported by District Officials during school 
closures.
Support from Provincial Education Department 
SMT members were asked if they felt supported by the Province during school closure. In 
response, 16 percent felt very (9%) or extremely (7%) supported by the Province. On the 
other hand, 46 percent felt that were not at all (26%) or only slightly (20%) supported by the 
Province during school closures. 
It appears that educators and officials felt more support the closer they were to the school 
level, and less support the farther away they were from the school level. This indicates 
several points to follow up on: 1) what does support look like at each of these levels; 2) why 
is it more effective at the school and SGB levels; 3) how can educators feel more supported 
by district and provincial education officials/bodies; and 4) how can effective support be 
scaled up to help mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 2.4: HAS THE LEVEL OF STRESS CAUSED BY THE
COVID-19 PANDEMIC AFFECTED THE ABILITY OF SCHOOLS, TEACHERS AND 
LEARNERS TO TEACH / LEARN? 
Survey results show that the COVID-19 has impacted on teachers and learners via multiple 
pathways, such as the constraints of following COVID-19 protocols and constraints on 
teaching. Over half of the respondents (55%) reported that COVID-19 protocols have made it 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
71
more difficult (29%) or extremely difficult (26%) to 
do their job. When asked if they thought it would 
be feasible to cover the curriculum in 2021, 44 
percent reported that they will not be able to do so. 
Qualitative open-ended responses also reveal the 
potential academic impacts of COVID-19, such as 
the curriculum not being completed, time limits and 
an expected drop in learner performance. 
When asked about their ability to teach, 79 percent 
of educators indicated that stress related to 
COVID-19 has had a moderate (43%), very (7%), 
or extreme (29%) negative impact on their ability 
to teach. Interestingly, SMT members were less 
likely to say that pandemic related stress has had 
an impact on SMT members’ ability to manage a 
school. Just 28 percent of SMT members reported 
that COVID-19 related stress has impacted their ability to manage the school. 
Direct responses from parents about their ability to support learning was not yet available (A 
parent survey is planned later in 2021). However, teachers reported that parents’ ability to 
support is inadequate. In response to a qualitative open-ended question: “How has COVID￾19 affected learners?” 17 percent of educators spontaneously mentioned parents and/or 
caregivers of learners being 
unable or unwilling to assist 
with learning for various 
reasons. It was further noted 
by 23 percent of teachers that 
parents and/or caregivers had 
feelings of fear, anxiety, and 
stress, which then negatively 
effects conducive home 
learning environment.
Source: Educator COVID-19 survey. Notes: Single response option. 
Read options. All respondents n = 439
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: 
Single response option. Read options. All 
respondents n = 439. 
Figure 12: Perceived impact of COVID-19 on educators’ ability to teach, and 
SMT members’ ability to manage schools
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
72
In relation to learner behavior, 47 percent of respondents reported that there was a large (24%) 
or some (23%) increase in the number of disruptive or challenging behaviors in learners since 
they returned to school in August. Qualitative open-ended responses reflect that eight percent 
of teachers perceive learners as having problematic or unproductive attitudes. Teachers 
referred to students “skipping school” and “not doing their work”, or referred to attitudes such 
as “lack of commitment to schoolwork.”
Academic impact
In response to a qualitative open-ended question: “How has COVID-19 affected learners?” 
educators noted several effects COVID-19 has had on academics, such the curriculum not 
being completed, time limits and constraints, a drop in learner performance, learners 
struggling with the curriculum content, delays, learners not learning all they should, learner 
forgetfulness, and a lack of learner concentration and focus. 
− “Affected them a lot. Before lockdown they knew how to read and write and when they 
came back, they forgot how to read and write or hold a pencil. Can't recognize the 
words” (Female, 32)
Respondents reported that these experiences were more of a problem than they would be in 
a normal academic year. Respondents also made special mention of COVID-19 negatively 
impacting slower learners, as these individuals battled to keep up and could not get the 
usual extra help teachers would offer during a normal academic year:
− “Affected very much. Learners left behind. Couldn't cope. Clever kids coped. Weaker 
couldn't cope...” (Female, 71)
Absenteeism and Drop-outs
In response to a qualitative open-ended question, about a quarter of respondents (26%) 
spontaneously mention concerns about absenteeism and drop-outs, including irregular 
attendance due to COVID-19 regulations:
− “Lot’s learners’ didn't get a chance to study more, not attend regularly lots of 
absenteeism” (35+, 227)
− “A lot because we were not meeting on daily basis they were struggling” (35+, 5)
− “they were affected badly because some dropped out and others failed and lost 
focused” (35+, 381)
Some respondents also highlighted that parents and/or caregivers are fearful of COVID-19, 
so they preferred for their children to stay at home which contributed to the rates of 
absenteeism and drop-outs. Furthermore, some parents and/or caregivers avoided going 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
73
into the school themselves to meet with teachers and find out what work needed to be done 
and how to assist their children with the schoolwork, which negatively impacted learners.
− “learners were not attending, parents were scared to let their kids come to school” 
(35+, 217)
− “Parents don't come to school because they are afraid to be infected. So, you cannot 
guide the parents how to teach the homework” (35+, 246)
Distress
Related to this parental fear, 23 percent of the respondents mentioned distress in response 
to a qualitative open-ended question. Respondents mentioned distress being experienced 
by a few different people, with learner distress (in the form of fear, anxiety, and stress) being 
the most widely spoken of, followed by parent distress and then teacher distress. 
− “A lot especially because parents were to assist they struggled as parents are not 
patient...teachers are very very important...learners were scared and concentration 
was affected” (35+, 72)
− “Anxiety ...struggled to cope and concentrate was affected” (35+, 74)
Respondents also noted that some learners experienced illness (either by getting sick 
themselves or having unwell family members), learners passing away or learners’ family 
members passing away. Some respondents also linked this distress with reduced academic 
outputs and lower concentration levels of students:
− “Learners parents were afraid and stressed cause they taught they will be 
inflected...they struggled slot and could not concentrate” (35+, 213)
− “... It also affected those who were no fortunate to come back. They had commodities 
like asthma they were afraid to bring learners to school. Personally, as a teacher I’m 
very sad to see an intelligence kid repeat class, but there are those who came just 
passed because they came on term 4” (35+, 329)
Disadvantages of a Home-Learning Environment
When asked about the difficulties of a home-learning environment, 17 percent of 
respondents referred to problems with providing a conducive home-learning environment
and oftentimes mentioned that children would not focus on their schoolwork. Educators 
mention issues like parents and/or caregivers of learners being unable or unwilling to assist 
with learning for various reasons. Respondents noted that some caregivers are illiterate and 
therefore were not able to help learners at all, while others were disinterested in or 
disengaged from the home-learning process. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
74
− “...Parents are illiterate so they couldn't do the work that the teachers do in normal 
circumstances to help the kids. So, the kids found it hard to cope” (Teacher, 181)
Some others mentioned problems such as children being at home alone or parents doing the 
work for their children instead of assisting them.
− “...Parents were not supportive, so they struggle to learn at home” (SMT, 233)
− “...The parents do the work instead of helping the kids with the homework” (Teacher, 
350)
Protocols in the way of learning
Almost a fifth of respondents (16%) mentioned that COVID-19 protocols got in the way of 
learning and/or teaching, due to problems like masks making it difficult to communicate with 
and understand learners, confusion over the new timetable and alternate teaching days, and 
a lack of physical or contact teaching which inhibited teacher engagement and explanation.
− “...reading was affected. Because of mask couldn't hear the kids in reading. Kids lose 
their mask...Had to go monitor the kids washing their hands during breaks. Keep them 
away from groups” (Teacher, 91)
− “It affected them negatively because they need physical interactions to understand...” 
(Teacher, 133)
− “They were afraid to communicate and do reading lessons. Because of the distance. 
You can't get close to them. Can't go individually and help them” (Teacher, 387)
− “Some learners couldn't come to school some came on wrongs days it created a 
mess...” (SMT, 270)
Perceived Negative Student Attitudes
This theme relates to respondents referring to the problematic or unproductive attitudes they 
believed students had, and what sort of impact these ‘negative attitudes’ had. These 
negative attitudes included respondents referring to students as “lazy,” as not doing their 
work, or more general negative attitudes like learners’ lack of commitment to schoolwork and 
skipping school. 
− “They become lazy during the days when they are supposed to be home” (SMT, 351)
− “...It has affected learners in a negative way, the learners are not doing the work (SMT, 
323)
− “They were not used to come in different days but they are used to come to school 
every day, so some had even an opportunity to bunk school...” (Teacher, 395)
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
75
− “Learners have lost interest. Coming for the sake of coming. When they do come, they 
are confused and don't follow the timetable” (Female, 208)
PSYCHOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR DEALING WITH COVID-19 
Despite the high levels of stress that educators are experiencing, schools and educators 
have implemented support strategies, or have identified the need for support strategies. 
This section explores which kind psychological support teachers and SMTs value most, and
also provides an insight into the types of support that they feel most able to provide.
18 The 
educator COVID-19 survey data was analyzed to answer the research question 3.1. 
RESEARCH QUESTION 3.1: WHAT KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SUPPORT WILL 
HELP TO REDUCE THEIR COVID-19 RELATED STRESS?
When asked what kind of psychosocial support can be provided to teachers to help them cope 
with teaching and learning during COVID-19, 46 percent of respondents said group sessions 
with other teachers, 42 percent wanted training on managing stress, and 40 percent requested 
training on how to support learners’ wellbeing. Providing learners with psychosocial support 
to help them cope with learning during COVID-19 was deemed extremely important by 68 
percent of respondents. 
A higher number of SMT members (53%) compared to teachers (39%) indicated that training 
on managing stress would help them cope with teaching during COVID-19. 
Source: The COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Single / Multiple response option. Spontaneous mention. 
Teacher responses only / SMT responses only/ All respondents n=439
 
18 Practical support requested by educators 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
76
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
South Africa’s Foundation Phase learners have lost nearly 56 to 57 percent of school days in 
2020, relative to 2019, due to school closures and rotational schedules implemented for face￾to-face learning (Kotzé, 2021). In addition to these lost school days, 26 percent of teachers 
and SMT members note the problem of additional learner absenteeism. Alternate rotational 
schedules have continued into 2021, introducing the risk that learners will again lose at least 
half of their face-to-face school days in the 2021 calendar year. Based on international and 
local research it is estimated that for every one day of in-person teaching lost, at least 1.25 
days of learning is lost (Gustafsson and Nuga, 2020). However, objective evidence on how 
learner performance has been impacted in South Africa is very limited. The educators who 
responded to the survey were in unanimous agreement that the learners have already fallen 
behind, and notably behind. That is a disconcerting finding since teachers typically tend to be 
more optimistic about learner performance than learning data reveals (Donovan, 2014). 
Further, existing evidence indicates that children typically do not easily “catch up” on 
foundational skills such as early grade decoding skills (Ardington et al., 2020; Spaull and 
Kotzé, 2015). These gaps in foundational skills can hinder future learning and have long-term 
implications for access to income and breaking cycles of poverty (Moses et al., 2017). 
The changes to school routines and new demands imposed on teachers due to COVID-19 
disruptions have placed a psychosocial burden on teachers. The survey shows that teachers 
have high levels of psycho-social stress and worry. Teachers, Head of Departments (HODs) 
and Principals have received some support from their colleagues, however more support is 
required to manage the risk of teacher burnout, teacher absenteeism, and teacher turnover 
(UNESCO, 2020). 
Based on these findings, we provide nine recommendations. 
Recommendation 1: Use data and contextual considerations to reflect on the 
benefits and challenges of rotational learner attendance schedules. Continued 
loss of face-to-face teaching and learning, due to school closures and rotational 
schedules, will further hamper learning of foundational numeracy and literacy skills, 
which will have severe implications for children’s development and future life 
outcomes. The DBE, together with their key stakeholders, should consider the 
evidence on the susceptibility of children and adolescents to SARS-CoV-2 (Tendesayi 
et al., 2021), together with concerns about the future-life impacts of constrained 
learning trajectories (Moses et al., 2017).
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
77
Recommendation 2: Identify community afterschool homework facilities to 
support out-of-school learning. Learners require additional opportunities to catch up 
on lost learning. Leveraging existing infrastructure such as empty classrooms in the 
afternoons, libraries, or community facilities for afterschool homework or learning 
development centers could augment opportunities for children to learn and read. 
Volunteers could be recruited and trained to read to, or read with, children. 
Recommendation 3: Develop a multi-modal national remedial program that
informs a media strategy to support home learning. Learners are behind and in 
response many organizations have developed resources to support learning at home. 
For example, UNICEF has created grade-specific learning content for radio and 
television 19 dissemination. Three things would be necessary to maximize such 
resources: First, the resources should be integrated into a learning program so that a 
less fragmented offering is available. Second, buy-in from teachers is required to 
ensure this can become a supportive tool for themselves and for parents. Thirdly, the 
offering should encourage both oral and written learning support. In Foundation Phase 
especially, learners need access to written support material and opportunity to read 
and write regularly.
Recommendation 4: Develop resources and tools to support effective 
supervisory home support to learners who need to complete parts of their DBE 
workbooks outside of school. Homework plans that integrate with revised annual 
teaching plans (ATPs) and the DBE workbooks could be developed to help ease the 
burden of schools having to craft appropriate guidance to parents. Making such 
resources available in low tech, scalable and easy to share format, would be essential.
Recommendation 5: Ensure that reading resources are readily accessible to 
support home learning. Provide fiscal resources to ensure reading resources are 
accessible to learners in every home. Promising strategies include making reading 
anthologies available to learners or making open-source stories accessible to 
households through partnerships with print media.
 
19 https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/stories/new-unicef-south-africa-education-covid-19-case-study
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
78
Recommendation 6: Document successful school strategies used to address 
the various COVID-19 disruptions and challenges, and share widely. 
Recommendation 7: Maintain COVID-19 protocols in the schools to make 
educators feel safe, but also encourage opportunities for peer support. Although 
educators are exposed to COVID-19 not only in schools, the DBE and school 
communities and school stakeholders should continue to take all possible steps to 
ensure that COVID-19 protocols are maintained in the school environment. 
Recommendation 8: Support peer-to-peer support amongst teachers. Provide 
guidance and link SMT members to resources that would help them create more 
opportunities for in-person and virtual peer support between teachers. The normal 
social interactions between teachers may have been affected by social-distancing 
protocols, but half of survey respondents suggested learning and sharing sessions with 
others as a feasible support strategy. Existing platforms, such as WhatsApp, or the 
DBE Teacher Connect platform,
20 could be used to disseminate information.
Recommendation 9: Launch a campaign to strongly encourage and support 
psychosocial check-ins at different levels of the school. Psychosocial check-ins 
from line managers are a way of providing extra support (Akerstrom, Corin, Severin, 
Jonsdottir and Björk 2021). This includes check-ins between teachers and their HoDs, 
between SMT members and SGB members, and SMT members and their colleagues 
at circuit, district and provincial offices. Check-ins can help decrease feelings of 
isolation and increase feelings of support, so long as they focus on people’s emotions 
and feelings, rather than work-related deliverables. Such check-ins need not be long, 
can be implemented virtually and can therefore be done regularly and consistently.
 
20 https://www.ecubed-dbe.org/
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
79
REFERENCES
Akerstrom, M., Corin, L., Severin, J., Jonsdottir, I.H., and Björk, L. 2021. Process evaluation 
of an operational-level job stress intervention aimed at decreasing sickness absence among 
public sector employees in Sweden.
Allen,K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need 
to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 
30(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8
Ardington, C., Wills, G., Pretorius, E., Deghaye, N., Mohohlwane, N., Menendez, A. Misatse, 
N. & van der Berg, S. (2020). Benchmarking early grade reading skills in Nguni languages.
Ataguba, J. E. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic, a war to be won: understanding its economic 
implications for Africa.
Attah, R., Barca, V., Kardan, A., MacAuslan, I., Merttens, F., & Pellerano, L. (2016). Can 
Social Protection Affect Psychosocial Wellbeing and Why Does This Matter? Lessons from 
Cash Transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Development Studies, 52(8), 1115–
1131. doi:10.1080/00220388.2015.1134777
Bayat, A., Louw, W., & Rena, R. (2014). The impact of socio-economic factors on the 
performance of selected high school learners in the Western Cape Province, South 
Africa. Journal of Human Ecology, 45(3), 183-196.
Bronfenbrenner, U., 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 
University Press
Chohan, B. I. and Qadir, S. A. (2013). Academic Failure at Primary Level: A Qualitative 
Approach to preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 1168-1189.
Gustafsson, M., & Nuga, C. (2020). How is the COVID-19 pandemic affecting educational 
quality in South Africa? Evidence to date and future risks. 
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In G.G. Bear, K.M. Minke, 
& A. Thomas (Eds.), Children’s Needs III (pp. 59-71). Bethesda, MD: National Association of 
School Psychologists.
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in 
learning. Educational research, 50(3), 277-289.
Hoadley, U. (November 2020). Schools in the Time of COVID-19: Impacts of the Pandemic 
on Curriculum. RESEP NON-ECONOMIC WORKING PAPER. Cape Town: South Africa.
Howie, S. J., Combrinck, C., Roux, K., Tshele, M., Mokoena, G., & McLeod Palane, N. 
(2017). PIRLS literacy 2016: South African highlights report (Grade 4). Centre for Evaluation 
and Assessment (CEA).
Huber, M., Knottnerus, J. A., Green, L., van der Horst, H., Jadad, A. R., Kromhout, D., Lorig, 
K. van der Meer, JWM., Schnable, P., Smith, R., van Weel, C., & Smid, H. (2011). How 
should we define health? Bmj, 343.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
80
Kotzé, J. (2021) Research Note: Effects of the pandemic on early grade reading outcomes. 
Pretoria. Unpublished.
Ladd, G.W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children’s social and school adjustment following 
the transition.
Lv, H., Wu, N. C., Tsang, O. T., Yuan, M., Perera, R., Leung, W. S., So, R., Chan, J., Yip, G. 
K., Chik, T., Wang, Y., Choi, C., Lin, Y., Ng, W. W., Zhao, J., Poon, L., Peiris, J., Wilson, I. 
A., & Mok, C. (2020). Cross-reactive antibody response between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS￾CoV infections. bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology, 2020.03.15.993097. 
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.15.993097
Mccarthy, K., Tempia, S., Kufa, T., Kleynhans, J., Wolter, N., Jassat, W., Ebonwu, J., 
Gottberg, Av., Erasmus, L., Muchengeti, M., Walaza, S., Ntshoe, G., Shonhiwa, A.M., 
Manana, P.N., Pillay, Y., Moonasar, D., Muthivhi, T., Mlisana, K., Chetty, K., Blumberg, L., 
Cohen, C., & Govender, N. P. (2021). The Importation and Establishment of Community 
Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 During the First Eight Weeks of the South African COVID-19 
Epidemic. SSRN. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3792114.
McLaughlin C. (2018) Schools, psychosocial well‐being and agency: From fragmentation to 
coherence. Eur J Educ. 2018;53:281–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12281.
Mohohlwane, N., Taylor, S., & Shepherd, D. September 2020. COVID-19 and basic 
education: Evaluating the initial impact of the return to schools. National Income Dynamics 
Study (NIDS) – Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey (CRAM) Wave 2. Paper 11. Pretoria; 
South Africa.
Mohohlwane, N., Taylor, S., & Shepherd, D., 2021. Schooling during the COVID-19 
pandemic: An update from Wave 3 of the NIDS-CRAM data.
Moses, E., van der Berg, S. & Rich, E. (2017). A Society divided: How unequal education 
quality limits social mobility in South Africa. Synthesis report for the Programme to Support 
Pro-poor Policy Development (PSPPD). RESEP: University of Stellenbosch.
Naidu, T. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. Psychological Trauma: Theory, 
Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(5), 559 – 561. https://doi.org/10/1037/tra0000812
Primary Education in Pakistan. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 7(1). 27.
Rutter, M. (1991). Pathways from childhood to adult life: The role of schooling. International 
Journal of Pastoral Care in Education, 9, 3–10.
Spaull, N., & Kotzé, J. (2015). Starting behind and staying behind in South Africa: The case 
of insurmountable learning deficits in mathematics. International Journal of Educational 
Development, 41, 13-24.
Stark, A. M., White, A. E., Rotter, N. S., & Basu, A. (2020). Shifting from survival to 
supporting resilience in children and families in the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for 
informing US mental health priorities. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, 
and Policy.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
81
Suldo, S. M., Gormley, M. J., DuPaul, G. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2013). The Impact of 
School Mental Health on Student and School-Level Academic Outcomes: Current Status of 
the Research and Future Directions. School Mental Health, 6(2), 84–98. 
doi:10.1007/s12310-013-9116-2
Thida, K., De Gruiter, M., & Kuppens, L. (2020). The impact of psychosocial challenges at 
home on primary school performance: the case of Cambodia. Final Research Report.
Van der Berg, S & Spaull, N. (2020). Counting the Cost: COVID-19 school closures in South 
Africa & its impacts on children. Sustainable Business, Stellenbosch University. 
Stellenbosch.
White, M. A., & Kern, M. L., (2018).Positive education: Learning and teaching for wellbeing 
and academic mastery. International Journal of Wellbeing, 8(1), 1-17. 
doi:10.5502/ijw.v8i1.588
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
82
ANNEXES
ANNEX A: RESPONSE RATES
Table A 1: Predicting the EGRS schools reflected in completed GeoPoll survey responses
(1) (2)
Quintile 2 (Ref: quintile 1) -0.026 -0.066
(0.070) (0.075)
Quintile 3 (Ref = quintile 1) -0.151* -0.216**
(0.085) (0.092)
1. Training (Ref = control) -0.004 -0.023
(0.082) (0.087)
2. Coaching (Ref = control) 0.051 -0.015
(0.082) (0.088)
3. Parents (Ref = control) 0.153* 0.100
(0.082) (0.088)
Number of educators in 2019 0.009** 0.003
(0.004) (0.005)
School median Grade 4 wave 4 ORF 
Setswana
-0.001 0.000
(0.002) (0.002)
Kenneth Kaunda district (Ref: Ngaka 
Modiri)
-0.138* -0.129
(0.076) (0.080)
Rural -0.165**
(0.077)
Constant 0.224** 0.403**
(0.108) (0.149)
Observations 227 201
R-squared 0.058 0.072
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.001. 
Missing data for 2 EGRS schools in estimation 1. Missing rural indicator for 
228 schools in regression 2. Sample only includes one teacher observation per 
school. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
83
Table A 2: Which of the following activities were done to support non-contact teaching and learning in your school during school closure? (Read 
options)
Role District Reading Score Type of Area
Total SMT Teacher KK NMM T1 T2 T3 NA Township Rural
1) Provide tutorials or one-on-one sessions 9% 8% 9% 5% 10% 8% 11% 10% 7% 9% 10%
2) Online teaching through for example. Google 
Classrooms 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%
3) Communicated about Radio or TV classes 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 8% 5% 6%
4) Virtual teaching through Skype -
Zoom/Google meetings/MS Teams or WhatsApp 3% 1% 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 5% 2% 4% 3%
5) Package of support in the form of learning 
materials in hard copies 34% 29% 36% 28% 36% 40% 32% 31% 34% 32% 36%
6) Package of support in the form of learning 
materials in soft copy [e.g., Sent through 
Email/WhatsApp]
13% 7% 15% 16% 12% 9% 12% 10% 22% 16% 9%
7) Printed material and parents collected it and 
returned it to me 28% 30% 27% 21% 30% 29% 26% 29% 29% 18% 32%
8) Sent home DBE workbooks with learners 63% 60% 64% 66% 62% 62% 66% 61% 65% 72% 59%
9) Other 2% 5% 1% 4% 1% 2% 3% 3% 0% 3% 2%
10) No support was given for learning at home 13% 14% 12% 14% 12% 10% 15% 12% 13% 13% 12%
Don't know 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0%
Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
N 439 107 332 104 335 117 116 115 91 107 234
Notes: Multiple response options. Teacher and SMT responses. *Reading score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score in 
Setswana in 2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. ^Area type is only available for respondents in EGRS schools. 
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
84
Table A 3: In the midst of COVID-19 school closures, how did you communicate with parents of your learners? (Teacher responses)
Age Group Gender Reading Score* Type of Area
Total 20-
39
40-
49
50-
69 F M T1 T2 T3 NA Township Rural
1)I sent WhatsApp messages to parents 37% 38% 41% 34% 37% 33% 35% 36% 36% 41% 40% 34%
2)I called parents directly or via WhatsApp 20% 22% 22% 19% 20% 21% 21% 20% 23% 17% 17% 24%
3)I visited their homes 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1%
4)I used platforms such as google 
classrooms/ Microsoft teams/Zoom etc. 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
5)I sent homework to learners via parents 7% 6% 8% 6% 7% 4% 10% 7% 7% 4% 7% 8%
6)I sent school newsletters 32% 33% 27% 34% 31% 38% 32% 35% 32% 27% 30% 36%
7) I shared the time-table of online lessons 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 4% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%
8)I did not communicate with parents directly 14% 14% 15% 14% 15% 13% 17% 17% 14% 9% 20% 14%
9)The school communicated with parents 14% 14% 16% 13% 14% 21% 15% 8% 17% 17% 17% 11%
88)DON'T KNOW 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
99)REFUSED" 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
N 332 63 96 173 308 24 78 89 90 75 81 169
Notes: Multiple response options. Teacher responses. *Reading score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score in Setswana 
in 2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. Area type is only available for respondents in EGRS schools.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
85
Table A 4: In the midst of COVID-19 school closures, how did you communicate with parents of your learners? (SMT responses)
District Reading Score* Type of Area
Total KK NMM T1 T2 T3 NA Township Rural
1)I sent WhatsApp messages to 
parents 24% 6% 28% 21% 30% 16% 38% 19% 23%
2)I called parents directly or via 
WhatsApp
14% 18% 13% 18% 19% 8% 6% 8% 18%
3)I visited their homes 3% 0% 3% 5% 0% 4% 0% 4% 3%
4)I used platforms such as google 
classrooms/ Microsoft teams/Zoom etc. 3% 0% 3% 3% 4% 0% 6% 0% 3%
5)I sent homework to learners via 
parents 7% 0% 8% 10% 7% 4% 0% 0% 11%
6)I sent school newsletters 59% 65% 58% 56% 56% 60% 69% 54% 58%
7) I shared the time-table of online 
lessons 1% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0%
8)I did not communicate with parents 
directly 11% 18% 10% 8% 11% 16% 13% 12% 11%
9)The school communicated with 
parents 17% 29% 14% 13% 19% 16% 25% 15% 15%
88) Don't know 1% 6% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 4% 0%
99) Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
N 107 17 90 39 27 25 16 26 65
Notes: Multiple response options. SMT responses. *Reading score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score in Setswana in 
2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. Area type is only available for respondents in EGRS schools.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
86
Table A 5: Do you think that, in general, learners did most of the work that teachers gave them to do during school closures?
Total Role District Reading Score* Type of Area
Total SMT Teacher KK NMM T1 T2 T3 NA Township Rural
Yes 18% 14% 20% 16% 19% 15% 24% 16% 18% 13% 21%
Yes but only some 36% 36% 36% 37% 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 44% 32%
No 38% 43% 36% 37% 38% 39% 33% 41% 38% 35% 38%
I did not give any work to learners 8% 7% 9% 11% 7% 9% 7% 7% 8% 7% 9%
Don't know 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N 439 107 332 104 335 117 116 115 91 107 234
Notes: Single response option. SMT and teacher responses. *Reading score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score in 
Setswana in 2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. Area type is only available for respondents in EGRS schools.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
87
Table A 6: If schools had to close again, which of the following teaching activities would be most feasible for you?
Total Age Group Gender Reading Score* Type of Area
Total 20-39 40-49 50-69 Female Male T1 T2 T3 NA Town￾ship Rural
1.Provide 
teaching using 
an online 
based method
6% 10% 2% 7% 5% 17% 1% 6% 12% 4% 9% 5%
2.Provide 
printed 
materials
48% 49% 52% 45% 50% 25% 50% 45% 47% 51% 37% 51%
3.Send home 
DBE 
workbooks
69% 70% 69% 68% 69% 58% 62% 67% 73% 72% 65% 70%
4.All of the 
above 10% 14% 9% 9% 9% 21% 15% 11% 8% 7% 14% 10%
5. Don’t Know 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 8% 1% 6% 2% 4% 4% 3%
6. Refuse 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
N 332 63 96 173 308 24 78 89 90 75 81 169
Notes: Multiple response options. Teacher responses only. *Reading score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score in 
Setswana in 2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. Area type is only available for respondents in EGRS schools.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
88
Table A 7: If schools had to close again, which of the following teaching activities would be most feasible for your teachers?
Total Age Group Reading Score* Type of Area
Total 20-39 40-49 50-69 T1 T2 T3 NA Township Rural
1. Provide teaching 
using an online 
based method
3% 0% 4% 3% 3% 0% 8% 0% 0% 3%
2. Provide printed 
materials 58% 40% 56% 60% 51% 59% 60% 69% 46% 60%
3. Send home DBE 
workbooks 76% 100% 74% 75% 79% 81% 64% 75% 77% 75%
4. All of the above 3% 0% 7% 1% 8% 0% 0% 0% 4% 3%
5. Don’t Know 3% 0% 0% 4% 3% 4% 4% 0% 8% 2%
6. Refuse 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
N 107 5 27 75 39 27 25 16 26 65
Notes: Multiple response options. SMT responses only. *Reading score reflects the tercile of the school with respect to their Grade 4 average EGRS reading score in 
Setswana in 2018. T1 = Tercile 1, T2 = Tercile 2, T3 = Tercile 3. Area type is only available for respondents in EGRS schools.
Contract Number: 72067418D00001, Order Number: 72067421F00001
89
ANNEX B: EDUCATORS’ RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL PSS-C ITEMS. 
Source: COVID-19 educator survey. Notes: Respondents were asked nine questions phrased as in this example: 
“How often have you been upset that things out of your control during COVID-19?” Respondents could choose: 
Never, almost never, sometimes, fairly often, very often and don’t know. For the purposes of interpretation we
10%
9%
9%
7%
16%
14%
8%
6%
11%
3%
4%
3%
4%
7%
3%
5%
5%
4%
35%
42%
22%
40%
38%
30%
39%
42%
37%
14%
17%
10%
18%
16%
20%
22%
20%
13%
36%
27%
54%
30%
21%
31%
25%
25%
34%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
0%
2%
1%
0% 50% 100%
How often do you feel as if something serious will happen
unexpectedly because of COVID-19
How often do you feel that you are unable to control the
important things in your life due to COVID-19
How often have you been nervous or stressed by
COVID-19
How often do you feel confident about your ability to
handle your personal problems during COVID-19
How often do you feel that things are going well
(optimistic) during Covid-19
How often do you feel unable to adequately prevent
COVID-19
How often do you feel that you can control the difficulties
of parenting / teaching / managing a school due to
COVID-19
How often do you feel that you have everything under
control in relation to teaching and learning during Covid￾19
How often have you been upset that things are out of
your control during COVID-19
Responses to individual questions on the Perceived Stress 
Scale - COVID-19
Never Almost never Sometimes Fairly often Very often Don’t know