Academic resilience and education governance in a post-pandemic world

Policy makers have paid a lot of attention to cognitive outcomes for students after the pandemic. But non-cognitive outcomes deserve attention as well.

At a Glance

• Education leaders and policy makers need to do more to address non-cognitive declines in the wake of the pandemic.
• Research and policy after the COVID-19 pandemic has paid a lot of attention to learning loss in academics.
• The disruption of the pandemic has also been linked to declines in student mental health,  physical health, and well-being.
• Both cognitive and non-cognitive skills contribute to academic performance.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the schooling of more than 1.5 billion students across the globe, resulting in a litany of short- and long-term effects that reverberate to this day. Among these aftereffects are the staggering learning losses in reading, mathematics, science, and other content areas.

One large study of 1.45 million survey results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Europe found that when PISA 2022 results were compared to five previous cycles, students experienced a learning loss of approximately 1.5 school years (Pena, Volante, & De Witte, 2025). Perhaps more important, the same study suggested that non-cognitive characteristics, such as sense of belonging and susceptibility to bullying, were equally impacted, particularly for girls and migrant student populations.

These findings underscore the important role that schools play in the development of both cognitive and non-cognitive skills and attributes. Although a great deal of attention has been devoted to the cognitive domain, both are essential features of academic resilience.

Cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions of academic resilience

Academic resilience is often considered a trait that students from challenging circumstances (e.g., low socioeconomic status) use to perform at similar levels to their peers who do not face such challenges. Unfortunately, this narrow view of academic resilience tends to focus on international achievement test results and similar outcomes. This understanding then informs national education policies (Volante et al., 2019).

Our research indicates that policy makers devote little attention to non-cognitive characteristics, such as mental and physical health and other characteristics that can contribute to greater resilience. Instead, they focus on policies to improve reading, writing, and mathematics performance (Volante et al., 2022; Volante, Klinger, & Lara, 2024). Perhaps more disconcerting is that these non-cognitive attributes have received less attention over time. This is in keeping with the prevalence of standards-based reform models across much of the Western industrialized world. The testing provisions and accountability requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act remind us that student achievement remains the ultimate arbitrator of school and teacher effectiveness.

Policy makers devote little attention to non-cognitive characteristics, such as mental and physical health and other characteristics that can contribute to greater resilience.

Sobering statistics regarding mental and physical health should provoke a renewed vision of what constitutes success. In the United States for instance, there has been a significant deterioration in student mental health, making the need to better support and integrate mental health in American schools increasingly urgent (Weist et al., 2024). Similarly, obesity increased 4.4% during the pandemic, adding to an already dire situation in which almost 20% of American children were classified as obese (Tzenios, Tzenios, & Chahine, 2022).

These trends justify a more balanced approach to cognitive and non-cognitive skills and attributes. Ideally, governments and education leaders should use this evidence to develop their education policies and school-based practices.

Academic achievement and the pandemic

Globally, education during the pandemic followed a similar pattern: The shift to online and remote learning raised concerns about resources and access based on location and other factors (e.g., socioeconomic status) and educational inequities. Governments and policy makers did not have an evidence base on which to make their decisions. Nevertheless, their responses aligned with early predictions and emerging data during the first year of the pandemic (e.g., Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2020). Early research into the effects of the pandemic typically focused on academic/cognitive learning losses. But in those regions that experienced extended school lockdowns, growing concerns were raised about further inequities and students’ health and well-being (e.g., Blazko, da Costa, & Schnepf, 2021; Volante, Klinger, & Lara, 2024).

The most recent PISA results show the largest four-year declines observed for math and reading since the initial PISA exam. Further, socioeconomic gaps increased. These alarming results indicate that global efforts to minimize the impact of the pandemic on students’ achievement have not been successful. This reality has contributed to a renewed focus on teaching the fundamentals of reading, writing, and math. While the goal of these efforts may be to enable education systems to “catch up” to pre-pandemic levels, there is no evidence such efforts will reduce long-standing inequities. Cross-national evidence also suggests some “catch-up” policies, such as narrowing of the curriculum to focus on these academic fundamentals, may be counterproductive and indirectly alienate students whose strengths lie outside these domains (Schnepf et al., 2024).

Of course, academic achievement should remain at the forefront in our schools. Certainly, given the global challenges we face and the increasingly rapid changes in technology, we need a highly skilled and educated workforce. One recent study estimated that 72% of those seeking work in the U.S. in 2031 will require some form of postsecondary education or training; of those, 42% will require at least a bachelor’s degree (Carnevale et al., 2023). Similarly, the recently published Australian Universities Accord (Australian Government, 2023) announced a goal of having 80% of its working-age population receive some postsecondary education and 55% of those ages 25-34 being university-educated by 2050. Hence, it is no longer enough to get back to where we were before the pandemic in terms of student achievement.

The non-cognitive dimension of achievement

Even as we recognize the importance of improving academic achievement, emergent research demonstrates a relationship between cognitive skills and non-cognitive skills. We see this relationship at work in the finding that academic learning losses during the pandemic were reduced by approximately one school year in students who had a higher growth mindset, greater sense of belonging, and experienced less bullying (Peña, Volante, & De Witte, 2025). Clearly, policy makers need to move away from “either/or” scenarios and encourage schools to address more than academic achievement.

Indeed, students will develop academic resilience only with a concerted effort to recognize the role of non-cognitive characteristics in student success. This effort will require leaders to direct appropriate resources to schools to address the physical and mental health crisis facing our children.

Students will develop academic resilience only with a concerted effort to recognize the role of non-cognitive characteristics in student success.

Interestingly, there is a long-standing and increasing research and policy base to build on. As one example, the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Survey has been administered across Europe, Canada, and the U.S. every four years since 1983-84, and the PISA assessment included a measure of academic resilience before the pandemic (e.g., Agasisti et al., 2018). Unfortunately, our ongoing research indicates little relevant policy action in this area; and in the current climate of academic recovery, the focus is declining below levels observed during the pandemic (Volante, Klinger, & Lara, 2024).

Education governance 2.0 and beyond

The Australian Universities Accord (Australian Government, 2023) is an example of what we term Education Governance 2.0. In recognition of future needs, the plan sets out an ambitious target for increasing the skills and education levels of the future workforce across Australia. Currently, 33% of Australians have an undergraduate degree, and 45% of those are between the ages of 25 and 34.

To achieve its target of 80% receiving some postsecondary training and 55% receiving university education, the country will need to focus on increased postsecondary education participation among people from disadvantaged groups, for example those with disabilities and those from First Nations, low socioeconomic, or rural backgrounds. The report appears to suggest future education equity will be primarily obtained through financial supports with a “whole of student” focus (learning and teaching, affordable student housing, employment and income support). Academic resilience, health and well-being, and non-cognitive skills are never mentioned. The targeted group for these initiatives will include students whose parents have not completed a university degree and whose previous school experiences have been challenging. These students would benefit from targeted education, resources, and supports related to planning and time management, goal setting, dealing with adversity (academic resilience), and addressing mental and physical health and well-being.

Student learning has yet to recover from the COVID pandemic. Lower levels of achievement, increased absenteeism, and lower levels of physical and mental health and well-being persist. At the same time, we must continue to make postsecondary education more accessible to potential students across backgrounds. Yet, the fundamental non-cognitive challenges that prevent such engagement are not being addressed in any substantial way.

We need to move from Education Governance 2.0 to Education Governance 3.0, acknowledging that future education targets will not be obtained until education policies and governance truly address those underlying traits and skills — including physical health, mental health, and well-being — that help develop academic resilience. As leaders around the world seek to put their own stamp on education, it is imperative that evidence, not political rhetoric, drive our policies to support the whole student.

Note: This research is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

Agasisti, T., Avvisti, F., Borgonovi, F., & Longobardi, S. (2018). Academic resilience: What schools and countries do to help disadvantaged students succeed in PISA (OECD Education Working Papers, No.167). OECD Publishing.

Australian Government. (2023). Australian Universities Accord: Final report.

Blazko, Z., da Costa, P., & Schnepf, S.V. (2021). Learning loss and educational inequalities in Europe: Mapping the potential consequences of the COVID-19 crisis (IZA Discussion Paper No. 14298). Institute of Labor Economics.

Carnevale, A., Smith, N., Van Der Werf, M, & Quinn M.C. (2023). After everything: Projections of jobs, education, and training requirements through 2031. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, McCourt School of Public Policy.

Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M.D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118 (17), 1-7.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on student equity and inclusion: Supporting vulnerable students during school closures and school re-openings. OECD Publishing.

Peña, J.W.Q., Volante, L. & De Witte, K. (2025). The impact of the pandemic and school closures on non-cognitive characteristics: Evidence from PISA. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 9.

Schnepf, S., Volante, L., Klinger, D. A., Giancola, O., & Salmieri, L. (Eds.) (2024). The pandemic, socioeconomic disadvantage, and learning outcomes: Cross-national impact analyses of education policy reforms. Publications Office of the European Union.

Tzenios, N., Tzenios, M., & Chahine, M. (2022). In the United States, obesity is so prevalent could it be described as a pandemic? Preprints.

Volante, L., Klinger, D.A., & Lara, C. (2024). Educational recovery in the aftermath of the pandemic: A critical analysis of recovery policies across Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 47 (3), 673-710.

Volante, L., Lara, C., Klinger, D.A., & Siegel, M. (2022). Academic resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: A triarchic analysis of education policy developments across Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 45 (4), 1112-1140.

Volante, L., Schnepf, S., Jerrim, J., & Klinger, D. A. (Eds.). (2019). Socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes: Cross-national trends, policies, and practices. Springer.

Weist, M. D., Parham, B., & Figas, K. (2024). Mental health literacy and school behavioral health: Introduction to the special issue. American Journal of Health Education, 56 (1), 1-6.

---

This article appears in the Fall 2025 issue of Kappan, Vol. 107, No. 1-2, pp. 68–71.