Supporting Vulnerable Children

Centre for Program Evaluation
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
Supporting Vulnerable Children

in the Face of a Pandemic
25 April 2020
Centre for Program Evaluation | Supporting Vulnerable Children in the Face of a Pandemic Page 1 of 30
Acknowledgments
The Centre for Program Evaluation (CPE) would like to acknowledge the input from staff of MGSE,
Prof Jim Watterston, Prof Lorraine Graham and Prof John Hattie.
We also thank the other members of the evaluation team at CPE listed below, your support and
contribution during the evaluation is greatly appreciated.
Benjamin Howes
Jesse Tse
Dr Georgia Dawson
Dr Jon Quach
Clinton, J. (2020). Supporting Vulnerable Children in the Face of a Pandemic: A paper prepared for the
Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Centre for Program Evaluation,
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 4
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 8
VULNERABILITY .......................................................................................................................................... 8
VULNERABILITY AND POPULATION PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 8
THE IMPACT .............................................................................................................................................. 9
POVERTY AND FAMILIES AT RISK ................................................................................................................................ 9
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER STUDENTS ............................................................................................... 10
CHILDREN WITH ADDITIONAL PHYSICAL, COGNITIVE, EMOTIONAL OR BEHAVIOUR NEEDS ................................................... 10
EARLY YEARS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................. 10
SCHOOL DISENGAGEMENT, REFUSERS AND ABSENTEEISM ............................................................................................ 10
LEARNING AND ACHIEVEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 11
EDUCATION IN THE HOME ...................................................................................................................................... 12
DIGITAL INCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 12
SUMMARY:............................................................................................................................................. 13
RECOVERY AND SUPPORT: EVIDENCE SUGGESTIONS .......................................................................................... 14
RECOVERY TAKES TIME .......................................................................................................................................... 14
RECOVERY NEEDS A COLLECTIVE RESPONSE THAT BUILDS LONG TERM RELATIONSHIPS....................................................... 16
SUCCESS IS DEPENDENT ON TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS.................................................................................................. 17
SHIFT THE FOCUS AND BUILD ADAPTIVE RESILIENCE THROUGH THE PROVISION OF SERVICES TO SUPPORT SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL
LEARNING ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
MAKING SCHOOL AND SCHOOLING INVITING FOR FAMILIES .......................................................................................... 18
ENSURE ONGOING COMMUNICATION ...................................................................................................................... 18
SUPPORT AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING FOR TEACHERS IS ESSENTIAL ............................................................................ 19
PROVISION OF TARGETED CONTENT ......................................................................................................................... 20
CONSIDER THE INVESTMENT IN MULTIPLE FORMS OF RESOURCES AND MODES FOR ALL..................................................... 20
INCREASE DIGITAL INCLUSION................................................................................................................................. 21
NEXT STEPS: BUILDING AN EVIDENCE BASE: EVALUATION ASSESSMENTS, MONITORING DATA LINKING ................................ 21
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 22
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. POPULATION EDUCATION LIFE COURSE MODEL ..................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 2.DISASTER RESPONSE PHASES OF SUPPORT DIAGRAM ADAPTED FROM THE COMMUNITY RECOVERY HANDBOOK.... 6
FIGURE 3.POPULATION EDUCATION LIFE COURSE MODEL ...................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 4.DISASTER RESPONSE PHASES OF SUPPORT DIAGRAM ADAPTED FROM THE COMMUNITY RECOVERY HANDBOOK.. 15
List of Tables
TABLE 1.THE EXACERBATED RISKS RELATED THE CURRENT PANDEMIC FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN .................................. 5
TABLE 2.THE EXACERBATED RISKS RELATED THE CURRENT PANDEMIC FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN ................................ 14
Executive summary
This paper particularly focuses on factors that will impede access to quality education, of the effects on the more
vulnerable groups, and it outlines models of support and recovery that evidence suggests are useful. This brief synthesis
draws parallels from literature on natural disasters and school interruptions such as school holidays, teacher strikes,
economic downturn, and natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes.
According to the Productivity Commission, disadvantage in Australia needs to be assessed against three metrics: relative
income poverty, material deprivation (inability to afford life’s essentials), and social exclusion. Children experiencing
these metrics can include those living in very low SES contexts, jobless households, children with special needs either
physical or psychological, children with language other than English backgrounds and refugee populations, rural and
remote contexts, and Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. Recently, low digital inclusion has been
considered an additional category particularly when this interacts with the other categories.
It is useful to consider the impact of the current pandemic from a Population Life Course perspective which illustrates
the determinants of education and its efforts in reducing vulnerability. The figure below illustrates the trajectory for
those in the existing vulnerable, the potential vulnerable and the protected categories within the population along with
those determinants of education that drive the curve up or down.
Low to
Medium Successful Education pathway
Risk
Impact on size of
population
vulnerable groups
High or Low Protective factors through the
Education Life Course
Medium
Risk to
High
Less than successful Education pathway
Unsuccessful Education pathway

High Risk
Educational
Interventions O-3 ECE Primary Secondary Tertiary Work
Figure 1. Population education life course model
Australian children living in poverty will experience exacerbated risk as a consequence of the COVID-19 school
interruption. For children at risk of missing approximately 10 weeks of in school education, (with the possibility of
further disruption over a longer period), given the context in which they live; it’s probable that there will be a significant
interruption of learning, access to support for health and well-being, a decrease in the development of individual
protective factors, and a lack of surveillance systems to identify issues that school provides. Subsequently, the equity
gap will increase and for many, the chance of recovery from the impact of living in these vulnerable contexts will be
diminished. Essentially, there is the probability that across this education life course, the size of the vulnerable group
will increase. Those on the cusp of vulnerability will have the greatest movement.
Currently we can define our major disadvantaged groups, and it is expected that students with the following
characteristics (Table 1) are most likely to be affected by the current suspension of normal schooling. We expect that
these students will experience an interactive effect of COVID19 and any prior disadvantage. Specifically, as a
consequence of the pandemic, students are likely to experience:
1. Increased stress, social and emotional concerns with possible behavioural issues arising.
2. Low self-regulation to maintain learning progression, that has been highly dependent on the teacher
3. No access to quality learning strategies and guidance necessary to promote development
4. Less educational resources and activities relative to peers, in particular in relation to limited digital
engagement
5. Continued and reaffirming experience of past lack of progress in school
6. Minimal concept of themselves as a learner at school, and likely the same at home. Hence impacting
on future engagement in schooling such as absenteeism and dropouts
7. Lack of facility in critical reading and numeracy skills to move to the next level, and more likely to
become part of the ‘low Matthew effect’(the rich get rich, the poor stay poor)
8. Living in homes which are not safe havens (for many of these students, school is the safe haven), there
will be an exacerbation of physical and emotional health issues
9. Parents who have low capacity or desire to engage them in the schoolwork at home and who ignore
or permit no engagement with schoolwork.
10. A loss in opportunity to engage, particularly for upper high school students preparing for high stakes
exams.
The Table below attempts to summarise the depth of ‘risk exacerbation’ as a consequence of the pandemic by indicating
with Green for a minimum effect, Orange for a medium effect, and Red, for the greatest level of exacerbation. The table
demonstrates the relationship between existing risk categories and like area of impact.
Table 1.The exacerbated risks related the current pandemic for vulnerable children
Numeracy & Literacy
Context
Emotional Maturity
General knowledge
Social Competency
Physical Health &
Emotional health
Communication
Engagement in
Development
Achievement
Well-being
Language
Cognitive
Impact
School
Indigenous
Safety & Security
context
Special Needs
High Behavioural
needs
Low SES
LBOTE
Family's at Risk
Rural & Remote
INTERACTIONS
Low Digital
engagement
ECE
Primary
Secondary
Many of these students are likely to be already ‘at risk.’ The absence from regular class, and support, suggests that the
level of risk and the number of comorbidities is likely to be exacerbated. Hence the recovery will be much more difficult.
It must also be acknowledged that within these categories there are subsets of students who are successful despite the
categorisation of some level risk, and in fact some will do better as a consequence of the current crisis.
Recovery and Support: what does the evidence suggest?

There are many ideas and much rhetoric about recovery, however there is little consolidated evidence on the support
needs for vulnerable children and families in times of crisis. The following present a brief overview of a number of
recommendations gleaned from multiple sources.
Recovery takes time

There are many national and international frameworks that provide a foundation for recovery after a disaster. The UN
Disaster Risk Reduction model (UN, 2015) for example, conceptualises disaster risk relief as a “Build Back Better” system.
This model argues that resilience emerges from a continual, interplaying dynamic cycle between response (immediate)
recovery (short-term) and preparedness (medium-term). The domains of action include teaching and learning; capacity
and capability; engagement, coordination, and communications; infrastructure; assessment, policy, and planning.
Recovery measures must redress damage and develop resilience-building measures (Shah, 2015).
Disaster response and management has several phases and it is worth drawing on these phases to consider education’s
response to the current COVID-19 crisis and beyond. In many recovery programs, the government-assisted stage can
be separated into distinct but overlapping phases that delineate an early recovery phase. This is important as it stresses
the transition from the immediate response to recovery efforts over time, as in the figure below (The Community
Recovery Handbook, 2018, p. 32). While the framework below is based on a community response model, it provides a
valuable template for the school sector’s phased response to the current crisis and particularly for vulnerable students.
Invest in Second contact

& information
Students stay sent home plus
home with options for
Support contact options support, digital
community & and suggestion of or other wise.
cultural activity digital or Multisectoral &
engagement otherwise. teacher support.
Contact,
Extra program
surveillance &
top-up.
support. Regular
Plus digital
Evidence based Promotion of
training for all. connection with
multisectoral school &
school & ongoing
approaches parent
programs to
training
support.
activities.
Strengths based
solutions
Monitoring &
data collection
School, Teacher & Community Collaboration
Figure 2.Disaster response phases of support diagram adapted from The Community Recovery Handbook
It is feasible that these ‘new normal’ services may be different in type and level to the services that were in place before
the disaster. There needs to be a concerted effort to derive the positives from the distance learning from home, any
improvements to the tasks and success, and bring them into the new normal. This work on recovery nationally is also
based on seven endorsed principles.
Understand the context: Successful recovery is based on an understanding of the community context.
1. Recognise complexity: Successful recovery is responsive to the complex and dynamic nature of
both emergencies and communities.
2. Use community-led approaches: Successful recovery is community-centred, responsive and
flexible, engaging with communities and supporting them to move forward.
3. Excellent diagnosis of every student comparing their expected growth prior to COVID-19, to
detect where extra attention and programs are needed.
4. Coordinate all activities: Successful recovery requires a planned, coordinated and adaptive
approach based on continuing assessment of impacts and needs.
5. Communicate effectively: Successful recovery is built on effective communication between the
affected community and other partners.
6. Recognise and build capacity: Successful recovery recognises, supports and builds on individual
and community strengths.
Ultimately, it is important that education recovery operations must draw attention to incorporating “children’s unique
mental health, physical health, educational, childcare, and juvenile justice needs into all phases of the disaster life cycle”.
Recommendations
1. Recovery needs a collective response that builds long term relationships.
2. Success is dependent on teachers and schools.
3. Shift the focus and build adaptive resilience through the provision of services to support socially and
emotionally.
4. Ensure ongoing communication with vulnerable children and families.
5. Support and professional learning for teachers is essential.
6. Provision of targeted content.
7. Consider the investment in multiple forms and modes of resources for all.
8. Increase digital inclusion.
9. Building an evidence base: Evaluation assessments, monitoring data linking.
Introduction
School closure can affect every child differently depending on their age,
By mid-March 2020, an estimated
dispositions, and past experiences. Closure can disrupt the relationships a
862 million children were out of
child has with their family and school staff, as well as slow down the
school. Importantly, vulnerable
development of a child’s language, physical skills, and their social and
children are significantly more likely
emotional wellbeing. The impact for those already living with great stress
to experience negative impacts upon
or disadvantage can also be magnified.
their health and wellbeing from the
suspension of school-based food
programs. The provision of Internet Access to resources, quality information, medical care and effective
and digital inclusion measures i.e. education are precious at the moment. Unfortunately for vulnerable
mobile phones for certain population communities, Hart’s (1971) inverse care law often applies, which shows
groups may assist in mitigating that the availability of care tends to have an inverse association with the
heightened risks associated with need of the population. This situation maybe be multiplied in this current
domestic environment and digital pandemic environment when basic communication tools such as digital
equity of access. (United Nations access is necessary but scarce for some.
Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (2020).
This paper focuses on factors that will impede access to quality education
during and in recovery phases, particularly for the more vulnerable groups, and outline models of support and
evidence-based recovery processes. This brief synthesis draws parallels from literature on natural disasters and
school interruptions such as school holidays, teacher strikes, economic downturn, and natural disasters such as
earthquakes and hurricanes
Vulnerability
According to the Productivity Commission, disadvantage in Australia needs to be assessed against three metrics:
relative income poverty, material deprivation (inability to afford life’s essentials), and social exclusion. Children
experiencing these metrics can include those living in very low SES contexts, jobless households, children with special
needs either physical or psychological, children with language other than English backgrounds and refugee
populations, rural and remote contexts, and Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. More recently low
digital inclusion has been considered an additional category particularly when this interacts with the other categories.
‘Nearly one in two children in very remote communities are vulnerable compared to one in five in metropolitan cities.
Overall, one in five children start school behind their peers, and half of these do not finish their education or go on to
employment’ (Lamb et al., 2015). Given the factors that make up this list, the exact figure of vulnerability varies; the
typical estimate is that 1 in 5 children in Australia have at least one risk factor.
Vulnerability and population perspective

The COVID-19 crisis backs on to a watershed summer for many Australian families and communities, with continuing
drought and extreme bushfires, that has led to marked economic downturn. In terms of educating our children, this
must not be viewed as a ‘time limited school disruption’ but an event that may continue in some form for several
months. It can also exacerbate any existing levels of vulnerability, adding new students to the vulnerable group, and a
possible increased resistance from students to attend or engage back in school in a timely manner. A population Life
Course perspective as seen in the figure overleaf illustrates the trajectory for those in the existing vulnerable
categories, and how the effects can increase if there is not early detection and successful interventions.
In the current circumstance, what is essential for our vulnerable children, is weighing up the potential short and long-
term impact and recognising the future economic burden of an increased equity gap against the need for investment.
If we consider that vulnerable children are already facing a negative impact as a consequence of their life
circumstance, then understanding the depth and reach of impact exacerbation by the pandemic is now critical.
Low to
Medium Successful Education pathway
Risk
Impact on size of
population
vulnerable groups
High or Low Protective factors through the
Education Life Course
Medium
Risk to
High
Less than successful Education pathway
Unsuccessful Education pathway

High Risk
Educational
Interventions O-3 ECE Primary Secondary Tertiary Work
Figure 3.Population education life course model
While the research is quite vague, there is some meta-analyses and systematic reviews in relation to the impact of
disasters on vulnerable groups. As with traumatic life events more generally, it is the combination or additive total of
risk and resilience factors that informs disaster outcomes (Bonanno et al., 2010).
The Impact
This section of the paper outlines impact risks for various cohorts, which is then followed by suggestions for reform.
Poverty and families at risk

Children of low socioeconomic status (SES) background may encounter additional difficulties in accessing quality
education (Heck & Parker, 2002). Friedman, et al. (2002) showed that in 13 of the 14 studies,lower SES was
consistently associated with greater postdisaster distress; with elevated symptoms more common in the first few
months following a high-impact disaster. Out of the six youth samples, the ethnic majority groups fared better in four
cases (Garrison et al. 1995; La Greca, Silverman, & Wasserstein 1998; March et al. 1997; Shannon et al. 1994),
whereas minority groups fared better in the other two cases (Garrison et al. 1993; Jones, Frary, Cunningham, Weddle,
and Kaiser 2001). From this, is clear is that physical health and wellbeing, and especially mental health is impacted in
the short term and longer-term disasters. The recovery rate and specific longer-term impacts are unclear. This
suggests that care is needed in generalising from disasters for lower SES children, as those disasters which led to loss
of life or major socioeconomic losses may have different effects from those where children are not exposed to major
stresses, any more than usual, in the home during the crisis.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students
There is little information in relation to school disruptions from
We have a serious problem with young people disasters (see below on absentee effects). However, it is thought
detaching from schools in Australia. Conservative that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are likely to face
estimates are that at least 50,000 children and young
additional burden, along with the higher proportion of risks they
people of school age have detached from any
already have on education, health, and social outcomes
educational program or institution, across the country
at any given time A multitude of factors lead to school (DiGregorio, Farrington, & Page, 2000). Aboriginal and Torres
disengagement and then detachment. According to Strait Islander children remain twice as developmentally
the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics Census vulnerable on two or more domains of the Australian Early
(2016), there were 3,460,766 children aged between Development Census than non-Indigenous children. Aboriginal
5 and 16 years living in Australia in 2016. In the same children who experience trauma often have difficulty
census, there were 206,486 children for whom there comprehending its impact and experience emotional difficulties.
was no information provided on the Census form Zubrick (2010), suggests that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
about their student status or the type of educational
children are more vulnerable to developing increased behavioural
institution that they were attending. Prevention of
difficulties after experiencing trauma. Watterston & O’Connell
detachment needs to start with identification and
intervention in quality early childhood education (2019) see school disengagement as a national emergency. The
settings. report presents several recommendations relating to further
investment data sharing and accountability, early intervention,
(Watterston & O’Connell, 2019)
support for teachers and the removal of system barriers.
Children with additional physical, cognitive, emotional or behaviour needs

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), an estimated 168,500 Australian children had a
severe disability in 2009, with the proportion of children with severe disabilities being highest amongst low-income
households (29 per cent) and lowest amongst high-income households (7 per cent). Some of the common challenges
faced by children with disability included exacerbated dependence on caregivers; limited mobilities; and heightened
sensory stimulation associated with emergencies and disasters (Balbus & Malina, 2009). O'Connor and Spreen (1988)
demonstrated that students with special education needs, learning difficulties and emotional disorders were severely
impacted by trauma as a consequence of the lack of access to mainstream education (and thence access to teachers).
“At school, they get individualized attention from professionals who are trained in, and deeply familiar with, their
unique ways of thinking, perceiving, and processing. But no amount of love and care at home can turn the average
parent into a special education teacher overnight. Nor can it enable them to practice occupational, speech, or physical
therapy—services that are provided in many schools.” (The Atlantic, 2020)
Early years development

Early childhood education and development is a key way to break the cycle of disadvantage for children living in
vulnerable circumstances in Australia. Early intevention is key to any successful long term initative to reduce
vulnerablity. Investing in the first five years of a child’s life is universally recognised as crucial to healthy development,
with experiences early in life having a ‘lasting impact on later learning, behaviour and health’. The early years for all
children is a crucial to development and the establishment of engagement in learning. Intervention at this time also
reduce levels of vulnerablity in later years. The Matthew effect (the rich get rich, the poor stay poor) is well supported;
that is if students do not attain sufficient competence (say Level II in NAPLAN, Level I in PISA) by age 8, then they are
unlikely to ever catch up to their peers – again, placing much importance on success in the early years.
School disengagement, refusers and absenteeism

Some Australian children do not receive the full benefit of school education as a result of becoming disengaged in a
classroom setting or not attending regularly. The current pandemic will inevitability create the opportunity for those
already disengaged to drop out of school or resist returning from the pandemic closures. Further, from both an equity
and lost opportunity perspective, about 40 per cent of young people with the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds do
not complete Year 12 or its equivalent by age 19.
There can be high costs for the individual and society from early school leaving. An early leaver costs the individual
$616,000 over a working lifetime, or across each cohort $23.2 billion over a working lifetime. School attendance rates
across all Australian schools decrease from year 7 to year 10, dropping from 93.0 per cent of nominally enrolled
students to 89.4 per cent (Lamb & Ho, 2017).
Attendance and engagement in schooling for our most vulnerable students is already a serious concern. For school
absenteeism, significant and substantial effects were found for risks that refer to:
1. physical and mental problems of the child (e.g., having psychiatric symptoms or disorders)
2. substance abuse (e.g., drug abuse)
3. antisocial or risky behaviour (e.g., showing anti-social behaviour or having anti-social cognitions)
4. problems at or with school (e.g., having a negative school attitude)
5. characteristics of the school (e.g., low quality of the school or education)
6. parenting problems and difficulties (e.g., low parental expectations)
7. family problems (e.g., an ineffective family system).
For school dropout, a significant overall effect in a negative direction was found for 23 out of 42 risk domains. Large
effects for school dropout were found for those having a history of grade retention (r= 0.35), having a low IQ or
experiencing learning difficulties (r= 0.33), and showing low levels of academic achievement (r= 0.32). Watterston and
O’Connell (2019) see school disengagement as a national emergency. Their report presents several recommendations
relating to further investment in data sharing and accountability, early intervention, support for teachers and the
removal of system barriers.
Learning and achievement

Specifically, as a nation over the next 3-5 years, we may not see any significant differences in achievement scores on
measures such as NAPLAN or PISA. The impact of a prolonged absence (say 10+ weeks), from school will probably not
manifest in a significant disruption to learning outcomes over time for most students. This means, the focus needs to
be on those already at disadvantage and identifying others who, because of the experiences during the school closure,
are likely to join these disadvantaged groups. After Hurricane Katrina, those who had prior history of problems were
more likely to show symptoms of traumatic stress, depression, sadness, anger, anxiety, and loneliness—for both
students and teachers (Osofsky, Osofsky, & Harris, 2007). Peek and Richardson (2010) reported that more than 75% of
students reported studying “much less” in the first year following the crisis. For the majority of students, however, the
effects on student achievement were not as great as many expected. Students were out of school between three and
seven weeks and many had no school work in this time: There was a drop of -0.17 from Katrina, but “what is more
surprising is how quickly the Parish evacuees recovered from the experience and actually began to see gains in test
scores” (Sacerdote, 2012, p. 131; see also Payne, McCaffrey, Kalra, & Zhou, 2008, who showed a drop of only -0.06 in
state-wide test scores from the outage). The increases for most students was because they did not return to their
previous schools but were assigned to more successful schools.
Education in the home
‘…..differences among students in support Parental engagement is defined as activity that supports children’s
from parents who can provide for them learning at home, at school and in the community. Most research tends to
educational opportunities directly at home support the idea that parental engagement in their child’s schooling is a
or accessing them privately, differences in ‘good thing’, but it depends on the way they manifest their engagement.
the capacity of different types of schools to The more it becomes ‘surveillance’ of schoolwork then more the effects
support the learning of their students become negative. When schools help teach parents to understand the
remotely, and differences among students
“language of learning”, then the positive effects increase. The Flaxmere
in their resilience, motivation and skills to
project (Clinton, Dixon & Hattie, 2007) showed that in lower
learn independently and online, are likely
to exacerbate already existing opportunity
socioeconomic areas, parents were more inclined to meet with teachers
gaps’ (OECD 2020)’ and support their children when they had greater understanding about
how students learn, how they could help their children to seek help from
teachers, and how to see errors as opportunities, not evidence of failure.
Harris and Goodall (2008) also showed that ‘schools rather than parents are often hard to reach’. The traditional
means of engagement of parents in their children’s education has been through homework or projects. There have
been 8 meta-analyses on the effects of homework, based on 217 studies, and about 150,000 students, showing it had
an overall effect size of 0.28, which ranks it 202 out of 250 influences on student achievement. The effects are much
smaller (close to zero) in primary, and higher (about 0.4) in high school – which primarily relates to the nature of the
homework. It has greater impact when the homework is an opportunity to practice already taught material than when
it involves new work, involvement with parents, and is unrelated to what is currently happening in the classroom.
Digital inclusion
Digital inclusion is based on the premise that everyone should have access to and be able to make full use of digital
technologies. With a growing range of education, information, government, and community services moving online,
internet access is increasingly regarded as an essential service. In general, Australians with low levels of income,
education, and employment are significantly less digitally included. There is consequently a substantial digital divide
between richer and poorer Australians. The ADII report (2018) suggested that some Australians are particularly
digitally excluded, and affordability remains a key challenge. The digital inclusion gap between Australians with
disability and other Australians is substantial and grew in 2018. It should be noted that many teachers feel unprepared
for distance or blended learning. ClassTag, (2020) in the US surveyed 1200+ teachers in mid-March during the COVID-
19 crisis and found that 43 per cent are making their own decisions about remote learning tools, and 57 per cent feel
unprepared for online teaching. Not only are educators navigating online learning and feeling unprepared, they are
dealing with cyberattacks that risk the safety of their learning environments, privacy, and potentially, student data
(eSchool News).
“Teachers are doing their best in an unprecedented and constantly changing situation, but the varying amount of
training districts are providing has created a patchwork of quality and gaps in accessibility. . . . Many teachers are
improvising and counting on patience from parents and students as they transition to online learning on the fly.”
The report goes on to question the impact of the digital divide: “e-learning districtwide raises thorny questions
about digital equity and access, especially for students with disabilities, children living in poverty, and those who
are homeless. This has forced school leaders to ask, ‘If we can’t teach every student equitably, should we be
teaching any at all?’” (Hechinger Report, 2020)
Summary:
For most children, particularly those not already in a risk group, the effects on their achievement may not be
significant enough to warrant special programs, a longer school year, or new programs. For at-risk students,
particularly those lacking access to the internet and regular teaching are more likely to experience exacerbated risk as
a consequence of the COVID-19 school interruption. This can lead to a greater equity gap, and reduce the chances of
recovery for those already in these vulnerable contexts. It is predicted that students with the following characteristics
are most likely to be affected by the current suspension of normal schooling – and the effects multiplied if they were
already in one of the above risk categories. The most at risk from the current COVID-19 crisis include:
1. Increased stress and social and emotional concerns with possible behavioural issues arising.
2. Low self-regulation to maintain learning progression, that has been highly dependent on the
teacher
3. No access to quality learning strategies and guidance necessary to promote development
4. Less educational resources and activities relative to peers in particular in relation to limited digital
engagement
5. Continued and reaffirming experience of past lack of progress in school
6. Minimal concept of themselves as a learner at school, and likely the same at home. Hence
impacting on future engagement in schooling such as absenteeism and dropouts
7. Lacks facility in critical reading and numeracy skills to move to the next level, and more likely to
become part of the ‘low Matthew effect’ (the rich get rich, the poor stay poor)
8. Living in homes which are not safe havens (for many of these students, school is the safe haven),
there will be an exacerbation of physical and emotional health issues
9. Parents who have low capacity or desire to engage them in the schoolwork at home and who
ignore or permit no engagement with schoolwork.
10. A loss in opportunity to engage, particularly for upper high school students preparing for high
stakes exams.
Many of these students are likely to be already “at risk.” The absence from regular classes and support suggests that
the level of risk and the number of comorbidities is likely to be exacerbated. Hence, the recovery will be much more
difficult. It must be acknowledged that within these categories there are subsets of students that are successful
despite the categorisation of some level of risk.
The table below attempts to summarise the depth of risk exacerbation as a consequence of the pandemic by indicating
with Green a minimum effect, Orange a medium effect, and Red the greatest level of exacerbation. Additionally, the
table demonstrates the relationship between existing risk categories and like area of impact.
Table 2.The exacerbated risks related the current pandemic for vulnerable children
Numeracy & Literacy

Context
Emotional Maturity
General knowledge
Social Competency
Physical Health &
Emotional health
Communication
Engagement in
Development
Achievement
Well-being
Language
Cognitive
Impact
School
Indigenous
Safety & Security
context
Special Needs
High Behavioural
needs
Low SES
LBOTE
Family's at Risk
Rural & Remote
INTERACTIONS
Low Digital
engagement
ECE
Primary
Secondary
Recovery and Support: Evidence suggestions

The following presents a brief overview of a number of recommendation gleaned from multiple sources.
Recovery takes time

‘The restrictions like social distancing have also impacted education at all levels, and will continue to do so for at
least several months, as learners and teachers are unable to physically meet in the schools and universities. These
limitations in the ability to meet during a protracted pandemic will likely limit opportunities for students to learn
during the period of social distancing. It is well known that time spent learning, or learning time, is one of the most
reliable predictors of opportunity to learn.’(OECD 2020)
There are many national and international frameworks that provide a foundation for recovery after a disaster. The UN
Disaster Risk Reduction model (UN, 2015) for example, conceptualises disaster risk relief as a “Build Back Better”
system. This model argues that resilience emerges from a continual, interplaying dynamic cycle between response
(immediate) recovery (short-term) and preparedness (medium-term). The domains of action include teaching and
learning; capacity and capability; engagement, coordination, and communications; infrastructure; assessment, policy
and planning. Recovery measures must redress damage and develop resilience-building measures (Shah, 2015).
The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2017) suggests that recovery is defined as "the
restoring or improving of livelihoods and health, as well as economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental
assets, systems and activities, of a disaster-affected community or society, aligning with the principles of sustainable
development and 'build back better', to avoid or reduce future disaster risk." (Downloaded from
knowledge.aidr.org.au/collections/recovery/). Disaster response and management has several phases and it is worth
drawing on these phases to consider education’s response to the current COVID-19 crisis and beyond. In many
recovery programs, the government-assisted stage can be separated into distinct but overlapping phases that
delineate an early recovery phase. This is important as it stresses the transition from the immediate response to
recovery efforts over time, as in the figure below (The Community Recovery Handbook, 2018, p. 32).While the
framework below is based on a community response model, it provides a valuable template for the school sector’s
phased response to the current crisis and particularly for vulnerable students.
The current situation provides the impetus for greater support of our children living with risk. Early recovery can be
seen as a part of a longer-term plan to ensure that not only the number of children in vulnerable circumstance does
not increase, but also that the impact of those already living in these circumstances does not become more ingrained.
Invest in Second contact

& information
Students stay sent home plus
home with options for
Support contact options support, digital
community & and suggestion of or other wise.
cultural activity digital or Multisectoral &
engagement otherwise. teacher support.
Contact,
Extra program
surveillance &
top-up.
support. Regular
Plus digital
Evidence based Promotion of
training for all. connection with
multisectoral school &
school & ongoing
approaches parent
programs to
training
support.
activities.
Strengths based
solutions
Monitoring &
data collection
School, Teacher & Community Collaboration
Figure 4.Disaster response phases of support diagram adapted from The Community Recovery Handbook
It is feasible that these ‘new normal’ services may be different in type and level to the services that were in place
before the disaster. There needs to be a concerted effort to derive the positives from the distance learning from
home, any improvements to the tasks and success, and bring them into the new normal. The work on recovery
nationally is also based on seven endorsed principles:
1. Understand the context: Successful recovery is based on an understanding of the

community context.
2. Recognise complexity: Successful recovery is responsive to the complex and dynamic nature
of both emergencies and communities.
3. Use community-led approaches: Successful recovery is community-centred, responsive and
flexible, engaging with communities and supporting them to move forward.
4. Excellent diagnosis of every student comparing their expected growth prior to COVID-19, to
detect where extra attention and programs is needed.
5. Coordinate all activities: Successful recovery requires a planned, coordinated and adaptive
approach based on continuing assessment of impacts and needs.
6. Communicate effectively: Successful recovery is built on effective communication between
the affected community and other partners.
7. Recognise and build capacity: Successful recovery recognises, supports and builds on
individual and community strengths.
A key argument here is that these principles build a strong foundation for creating educational support for our more
vulnerable communities. A clear focus needs to be children with a high level of comorbidities. Reliably identifying
them and any interaction effects from the COVID-19 situation and providing support for these students is essential.
More specifically, relating education factors necessary for recovery in a recent rapid assessment related to COVID-19,
the OECD (2020) reported that educational leaders identified five domains in which educational responses were the
most challenging and should be specifically targeted:
1. Availability of technological infrastructure,

2. Addressing student emotional health,
3. Addressing the right balance between digital and screen free activities,
4. Lack of availability of parents/guardians to support learning at home, and finally;
5. Management of technological infrastructure.
Recovery needs a collective response that builds long term relationships

Utilising a multipronged and collective impact approach to support recovery will be essential in the coming months of
the recovery phase for vulnerable children and communities. This collective needs to include schools, communities,
families, students, multiple sectors and industries. This collective impact approach needs to focus on ‘strengths-based
solutions’ that build strong relationships and practice that fosters communication, resource building and ongoing
support structures and monitoring systems. The notion that schools should have stronger relationships with their
communities has been promoted for decades by educators, health service providers, community developers and
governments in Australia, Europe and North America (Bryk, Hill & Shipps, 1999; Hands, 2010; Muijs, 2007). Schools as
community hubs provide a successful model to consider (Cleveland, Clinton McShane and Newton, 2019).
Success is dependent on teachers and schools
Schools bear a central role as repositories and creators of educational human capital. They create positive
externalities for society inculcating skills, attitudes and values that will be valuable for people during normal times,
but also to overcome hardship sometimes (as education is a portable asset). In fact, the centrality of schools to
society goes beyond the formation of human capital. When schools are destroyed by a disaster, their
reconstruction and the return of children can be one of the most effective ways to demonstrate a return to
normalcy to the local population and to help the government rebuild the social contract (UNDP, 2008).
Recognising their power and esteeming schools and teachers is essential for recovery. Society and the health and
education systems that sit within society have been changed by the pandemic, and this is also observed in other
natural disaster scenarios. Children and young peoples’ education is affected by the availability of resources, and the
policy decisions that are made. In the presence of scarcity and a desperate focus on healthcare and restoration of
normal routines, it is plausible that fewer resources will be devoted to the improvement of education for a substantial
period of time. Broader decisions affecting society as a whole can have a domino effect from affecting the education
system, schools, staff, parents, and ultimately to children’s education. Education is a social determinant of health, and
it is the most modifiable of all social determinants (Marmot et al., 2010).
Approximately 175 million children have their schooling interrupted by a
Percentage of achievement variance
disaster annually (Nicolai, Hine and Wales, 2016), while the impacts are
variable it is essential that we understand that schools and teachers will
Teachers play a pivotal role in this recovery. Hattie (2009) demonstrated that
Students teachers are the key variable in education for all children. Quality
teaching for any student in any condition is essential; this is more so for
Home
Peers children at risk of poor educational outcomes. Based on synthesis of over
Schools Principal
90,000 studies with 300 million students, Hattie (2009, 2019) estimates
the variance for the major contributors to student learning. The largest
source of variance we have control over relates to the teachers. It is
teachers that most can make the difference to student learning. This is
particularly important for those children living in vulnerable contexts. Under normal circumstances, schools and
teachers play a crucial role in students’ daily life. Nonetheless, at these critical times the role of schools may have
changed, but it is just as vital in mediating the students’ recovery from their physical and emotional trauma. This idea
is portrayed through the recovery of students from natural disasters. Many studies suggested that school-based
interventions had positive effects on students’ psychological well-being.
A first priority is to provide “safe spaces” for children so they do not suffer more and can begin to recover (Burde,
Guven, Kelcey, Lahmann, and Al-Abbadi, 2015). The immediate aim is to assist children and teachers alike with a
sense of normalcy amidst high levels of change during crises (Davies & Talbot, 2008), provide psychosocial support
through curriculum and pedagogy to improve social and emotional resilience (Winthrop & Kirk, 2008), and provide
entry points to services (Aguilar & Retamal, 2009). Burde et al. (2017) noted interventions that most effectively
improved students’ educational outcomes and improved mental health were those that prioritised access, encouraged
school- community communication, and fostered parent-teacher relationships.
Peek et.al., (2017) noted that in the aftermath of recovery, children identified their teachers, peers, and schools as
playing the most significant role in their recovery. Their study described that teachers made a concerted effort to
“welcome” students and establish normality and acceptance at the reopening of schools. They facilitated peer support
systems; dedicated extra time and support to students most vulnerable and displaying symptoms of trauma, anxiety
and stress; and facilitated opportunities for students to creatively describe and reflect upon their traumatic
experiences in a safe, accepting and nurturing environment to improve social and emotional health. Peer support was
also valued highly by students (i.e. hurricane evacuees) for their role in assisting in recovery, by providing voluntary
tutoring, positive reinforcement and encouragement. Together processes to “reclaim” their class and school are
important in the early recovery phase.
Shift the focus and build adaptive resilience through the provision of services to support social and
emotional learning
Access to relevant health and wellbeing services in recovery is particularly important, as this will require schools to
collaborate with appropriate services and importantly provide support for teachers to assist in the process. Mutch
(2014) suggested that it is important to allow staff (and students) to discuss their feelings, share their experiences and
look for warning signs that they might not be coping. She also describes this as ‘Keeping a pulse on students’
emotional health’. Interestingly, Van der Kolk, (2007) suggests that services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children which implement a trauma-informed approach drawing on ancient wisdom of Indigenous cultures are most
successful in facilitating healing and recovery. One of the strengths of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities is where there is a kinship care system. In these cases, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children may
seek nurturance from extended family members, and benefit from kinship care as the close relationships keep them
connected to their family, community and culture, and support their healing from trauma. Children and youth
represent valuable resources to nurture and mobilize for disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience at
the individual, family, and community level. Include children and youth in establishing medium-term resilience in
recognition of their social competence (Pfefferbaum, Pfefferbaum & Van Horn, 2018). Cahill et.al. (2020), argues that
there are a number of key protective factors that need to be nurtured, and these are true for our most vulnerable
children. These factors are:
a. Sense of safety and security (I am safe)
b. Self-worth (I am respected and valued)
c. Social connection (I am wanted and needed, I can listen and be heard)
d. Self-efficacy (I can do things to look after myself and others)
e. Sense of purpose, hope, and meaning (Going to school is worthwhile).
Making school and schooling inviting for families

Parents, as well as many students, often view school as uninviting (Purkey, 1996). This is particularly so for vulnerable
families. There is an opportunity to build and strengthen the relationship in the current environment; helping families
learn the language of learning will support ongoing connections. The Educational Endowment Foundation (2019)
present four evidence-based recommendations to schools to support parental engagement in schooling:
• Critically review how you work with parents;
• Provide practical strategies to support learning at home;
• Tailor school communications to encourage positive dialogue about learning; and,
• Offer more sustained and intentional support where needed.
Vaugh and Caldwell (2017) suggest activities such as shared reading is effective with younger children; routines and
encouragement for homework for older children. The more parents take on a surveillance role, however, the greater
the negative effects. Transitions across levels of schooling can be significant, for example into the middle years where
they are ‘reading to learn’, into high school settings, and out of high school.
Caution is needed about homework that undermines a student’s motivation and that leads to the student internalising
incorrect routines. For too many students, homework reinforces that they cannot learn by themselves, and that they
cannot do the schoolwork. So, ensure that it is task-oriented homework not deep learning and problem solving
homework; that it can be done without the need for other’s expertise (do not depend on the parents), that the task is
very clear so this does not interfere with the opportunity to practice, and make sure it is assessed back at school to
show the student it was critical as part of the ongoing school learning.
Ensure ongoing Communication

Personalised school communications can improve children’s learning and attendance (Clinton et al., 2007). School
needs to still be part of life in the early phases of the pandemic so that the transition back occurs smoothly.
Subsequently, there is a need to continue school-home engagement, establishing connections between home and
school environments to monitor and mitigate psychosocial issues. This communication between home and school
needs to establish strong relationships that can be nurtured during the phases of recovery.
Support and professional learning for teachers is essential
Student health and wellbeing were improved when teachers were trained in the delivery of trauma-informed care
such as psychosocial interventions, and when caregiver health and wellbeing was recognised and supported (Dybdahl,
2001 Ager et al., 2011; Berger & Gelkopf, 2009; Kostelny & Wessells, 2008). Specific psychosocial-informed programs
appear to improve educational outcomes (Betancourt et al., 2014; Layne et al., 2008).
‘It is important to embed social and emotional learning through everyday classroom teaching. These skills should
complement traditional academic areas through the learning process. For teachers, this means having the
confidence to identify social and emotional needs of all their students, and having the skills and knowledge to
respond and support. However, it should be seen as a system-level approach, not just the role of teachers. This
would require system-based structures (i.e. health services) that can support students with more complex needs
but also ensure alignment and coherence with what teachers can do within classrooms’.
Dawson & Quach (2020).
Train in-service and pre-service teachers in methodologies to help children deal with trauma. Supporting professional
development opportunities for teachers should be identified, funded, and incorporated into medium-term strategic
planning at the national, regional, and local levels. It is also important to remember that professional development is
redundant if teachers’ wellbeing and welfare have not also been addressed. School staff may experience similar
pandemic consequences whether or not they are parents, as negative impacts on their physical and mental wellbeing
will also affect their students. Their influence is likely to be as great, if not more so, than parents, on students’
academic outcomes.
Further, higher staff turnover is common in these situations, along with general reductions in staff as a result of any
school budget cuts (Mudavanhu, 2014). In the face of a natural disaster or a school trauma, school leaders can also
face overwhelming shock and helplessness. Early identification if this occurs can benefit the whole school (McManus,
2005). Leaders are often asked to make some critical yet challenging decisions within a tight timeframe to minimise
damages to the schools, teachers, families, and students. Currently, many schools around the country are engaging in
building Professional Learning Communities to support teaching and teachers more generally. These existing
structures provide a valuable place for teachers to discuss, learn and communicate ideas and challenges. Adding a
focus for online PLCs that support practises on social and emotional learning, e-learning and supporting vulnerable
students can only add value.
Provision of targeted content
Learning content needs to be targeted towards
‘What we should be doing for our most vulnerable Kids numeracy, and literacy and language development in
now and in recovery is making sure they are safe and the early years, and consolidation of already covered
ready to learn. The equity gaps are yawning caverns at material in later years.
this time in terms of preparedness, support and the
technology needed to learn remotely. If there was ever a There also needs to be an emphasis on curricula that
time when teachers needed to know where every student equips students with effective psychosocial practices
is and what they need to learn next this is it. We need and social and emotional learning (SEL). This may
knowledgeable teachers who understand assessment, include supporting teachers to deliver a range of
intervention, differentiation and evaluation (acronym is targeted child-friendly learning experiences that
AIDE) of learning and lesson design. We need to focus on emphasise health and wellbeing, i.e. sports, art,
what is important content and important practice and, in drama, music, games, storytelling.
recovery, we particularly need to support those
vulnerable students making schooling.’
Graham (2020)
Consider the investment in multiple forms of resources and modes for all.
Education providers and publishers are currently providing many free tools and resources to support educators. Topics
such as online teaching and learning, social and emotional learning, and instructional technology are popular (Good
eReader, 2020). The Education Week Market Brief suggests that ‘Curriculum providers need to recognize that many
districts have come to see the value in open educational resources—particularly when they’re used for supplemental
lessons. They have an appetite for open supplemental materials across different subjects and grade levels’.
There has been some discussion about building professional learning resources around social emotional learning, both
for educators and resources for students and family. The Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and CASEL (The
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning) in the US, recently launched a survey via a webinar to take
the pulse of educators’ emotional health. In just over three days, more than 5,000 educators responded, reporting
being anxious, fearful, worried, overwhelmed and sad (NEA today, The National Education Association, 2020). Parents
are also requesting support materials. Hence, we now have an opportunity to reach out to parents and families with
support materials that encourage their ongoing engagement in education and builds capacity. For example, online
training packages, mobile phone snapshots and quizzes are utilised in several industries to connect and educate.
Increase Digital inclusion
Consider a response that supports the immediate early relief and recovery need, but utilise the opportunity to
increase digital access for the future. To address education equity and the digital divide, Gorski, P. (2005), suggests
that low digital inclusion, or "digital divide" has traditionally described inequalities in access to computers and the
Internet between groups of people based on one or more dimensions of social or cultural identity. However, Gorski,
et.at., (2019) argue for a critical reconceptualisation of the “digital divide” and its relationship within education,
arguing “access” should be fundamentally based not on physical access, but equity of access.
Resta and Laferrière (2017) report five key dimensions of interventions aimed at addressing digital equity:
1. Hardware and software connectivity
2. Meaningful and culturally relevant content (i.e. broad-based curriculum support)
3. Creating, sharing, and exchanging of digital content (i.e. interactive e-learning fostering community)
4. Educators who know how to use digital tools and resources (i.e. targeted teacher professional development
delivered in private-public partnerships)
5. High quality research on the application of digital technologies (i.e. all practices carefully monitored and
evaluated to inform decision makers on areas requiring improvement and support).
To address low digital inclusion, Livingstone and Helper (2007) note that while providing home Internet access can
help alleviate relative socioeconomic disadvantage, it cannot overcome the relative disadvantage in terms of breadth
and sophistication of Internet use. They highlighted the “digital divide” in terms of such disparity in use, noting that
basic internet is typically associated with narrow, unadventurous use of the internet, while more the sophisticated
facilitate broad ranging uses that are more likely to enable access to new opportunities and the realisation of
individual and social goals.
Next steps: Building an evidence base: Evaluation assessments, monitoring data linking
Disasters are characteristically unforeseen, causing many studies to be reactive, with planned pre-post studies rarely
available (Parker et al. 2019). Overwhelmingly in this space access to quality data and information is sparse, and the
current crisis provides an opportunity to consider data linking measures as a means of understanding the needs of our
vulnerable communities. We know little about how our education systems fare in such conditions. Hence, it is
important to evaluate and monitor an education system’s capacity to adapt and innovate including their level of
readiness for change, and their structural integrity to carry the load. Beyond the analysis of self-reported immediate
behaviours and perceived risks, advancing disaster research and attaining key insights into effective recovery and
response will require well-designed monitoring and evaluation with longitudinal assessment of individuals, i.e.
vulnerable children, and communities “across the life-cycle of a disaster and across multiple disasters” (Parker et al.
2019).
Learning from the current events is a must, in particular as resourcing becomes scarce, we need more evidence
targeted for effective and efficient responses. Utilising evidence to build preventive models for vulnerable children
and families will assist in the new normal.
References
Ager, A., Akesson, B., Stark, L., Flouri, E., Okot, B., McCollister, F., & Boothby, N. (2011). The impact of the
school-based Psychosocial Structured Activities (PSSA) program on conflict-affected children in
Northern Uganda. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 52, 1124–1133.
Aguilar, P., & Retamal, G. (2009). Protective environments and quality education in humanitarian contexts.
International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 3–16.
Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2018). Australian Disaster Resilience Community
Recovery Handbook (3rd Edition). East Melbourne, VIC.: Author.
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical
study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67-86.
Atkinson, J. (2013). Trauma-informed services and trauma-specific care for Indigenous Australian children.
Canberra, ACT.: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).
Australia and New Zealand School of Government. (2018). A Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for
Disaster Recovery Programs. Carlton, VIC.: Author.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2009). Measuring the social and emotional wellbeing of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Catalogue No.: IHW 24. Canberra, ACT,: Author.
Baez, J., de la Fuente, A., Santos, I. (2010). Do Natural Disasters Affect Human Capital? An Assessment
Based on Existing Empirical Evidence. Discussion Paper No. 5164. Bonn.: Institute of Labor Economics.
Balbus, J. M., & Malina, C. (2009). Identifying vulnerable subpopulations for climate change health effects in
the United States. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 51(1), 33-37.
Bennett, R. E. (2018). Educational assessment: What to watch in a rapidly changing world. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(4), 7-15.
Berger, E., Carroll, M., Maybery, D., & Harrison, D. (2018). Disaster impacts on students and staff from a
specialist, trauma-informed Australian school. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11(4), 521-530.
Berger, R., & Gelkopf, M. (2009). School-based intervention for the treatment of tsunami-related distress in
children: A quasi-randomized controlled trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 78, 364–371.
Betancourt, T. S., McBain, R., Newnham, E. A., Akinsulure-Smith, A. M., Brennan, R. T., Weisz, J. R., &
Hansen, N. B. (2014). A behavioral intervention for war-affected youth in Sierra Leone: A randomized
controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53, 1288–1297.
Black, M. M., & Dewey, K. G. (2014). Promoting equity through integrated early child development and
nutrition interventions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1308(1), 1-10.
Blanc, J., Bui, E., Mouchenik, Y., Derivois, D., & Birmes, P. (2015). Prevalence of post-traumatic stress
disorder and depression in two groups of children one year after the January 2010 earthquake in
Haiti. Journal of affective disorders, 172, 121-126.
Bokszczanin, A. (2008). Parental support, family conflict, and overprotectiveness: Predicting PTSD symptom
levels of adolescents 28 months after a natural disaster. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 21(4), 325-335.
Bonanno, G. A., Brewin, C. R., Kaniasty, K., & Greca, A. M. L. (2010). Weighing the costs of disaster:
Consequences, risks, and resilience in individuals, families, and communities. Psychological science in
the public interest, 11(1), 1-49.
Boon, H. J., Brown, L. H., Tsey, K., Speare, R., Pagliano, P., Usher, K., & Clark, B. (2011). School Disaster
Planning for Children with Disabilities: A Critical Review of the Literature. International Journal of
Special Education, 26(3), 223-237.
Boon, H. J., Cottrell, A., King, D., Stevenson, R. B., & Millar, J. (2012). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory
for modelling community resilience to natural disasters. Natural Hazards, 60(2), 381-408.
Brown, R. C., Witt, A., Fegert, J. M., Keller, F., Rassenhofer, M., & Plener, P. L. (2017). Psychosocial
interventions for children and adolescents after man-made and natural disasters: a meta-analysis and
systematic review. Psychological medicine, 47(11), 1893-1905.
Brummet, Q. (2014). The effect of school closings on student achievement. Journal of Public
Economics, 119, 108-124.
Burde, D., Guven, O., Kelcey, J., Lahmann, H., & Al-Abbadi, K. (2015). What works to promote children’s
educational access, quality of learning, and wellbeing in crisis-affected contexts. Education Rigorous
Literature Review, Department for International Development. London: Department for International
Development.
Burde, D., Kapit, A., Wahl, R. L., Guven, O., & Skarpeteig, M. I. (2017). Education in Emergencies: A Review
of Theory and Research. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 619–658.
Cahill, H., Shlezinger, K., Romei, K., Dadvand, B. (2020). Research-informed approaches to supporting
student wellbeing post-disaster. Melbourne: Youth Research Centre, The University of Melbourne.
Chetty, K., Aneja, U., Mishra, V., Gcora, N., & Josie, J. (2018). Bridging the digital divide in the G20: skills for
the new age. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 12(2018-24), 1-20.
Clinton, J., Hattie, J., & Dixon, R. (2007). Evaluation of the Flaxmere Project: When families learn the
language of school. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.
Cohen, S. D. (2017). Science to Policy and Practice: Three Principles to Improve Outcomes for Children and
Families. Harvard University.: Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.
Cordero, J. M., Cristobal, V., & Santín, D. (2018). Causal inference on education policies: a survey of
empirical studies using PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(3), 878-915.
Davies, L., & Talbot, C. (2008). Learning in conflict and post-conflict contexts. Comparative Education
Review, 52, 509–518.
Drennan, L., McGowan, J., & Tiernan, A. (2016). Integrating recovery within a resilience framework:
Empirical insights and policy implications from regional Australia. Politics and Governance, 4(4), 74-86.
Dybdahl, R. (2001). Children and mothers in war: An outcome study of a psychosocial intervention program.
Child Development, 72, 1214–1230.
Eastwood, J. G., Garg, P., De Souza, D. E., Tyler, I., Dean, L., MacSween, M., & Moore, M. (2019). Designing
an Integrated Care Initiative for Vulnerable Families: Operationalisation of realist causal and
programme theory, Sydney Australia. International journal of integrated care, 19(3).
Eastwood, J. G., Shaw, M., Garg, P., Woolfenden, S., Tyler, I., & Kemp, L. A. (2019). Designing initiatives for
vulnerable families: from theory to design in Sydney, Australia. International journal of integrated
care, 19(3).
Education Endowment Foundation. (2019). Evidence for Learning Early Childhood Education Toolkit:
Guidance Report. Education Endowment Foundation.: Author.
Finucane, M. L., Acosta, J., Wicker, A., & Whipkey, K. (2020). Short-Term Solutions to a Long-Term
Challenge: Rethinking Disaster Recovery Planning to Reduce Vulnerabilities and
Inequities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 482.
Fothergill, A., & L. Peek. (2006). Surviving Catastrophe: A Study of Children in Hurricane Katrina. In Learning
from Catastrophe: Quick Response Research in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina (pp. 97–129). Boulder,
Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
Garrison, C. Z., Bryant, E. S., Addy, C. L., Spurrier, P. G., Freedy, J. R., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1995).
Posttraumatic stress disorder in adolescents after Hurricane Andrew. Journal of the American Academy
of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(9), 1193-1201.
Garrison, C. Z., Weinrich, M. W., Hardin, S. B., Weinrich, S., & Wang, L. (1993). Post-traumatic stress
disorder in adolescents after a hurricane. American Journal of Epidemiology, 138(7), 522-530.
Gibbs, L., Block, K., Harms, L., MacDougall, C., Baker, E., Ireton, G., ... & Waters, E. (2015). Children and
young people's wellbeing post-disaster: Safety and stability are critical. International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction, 14(2), 195-201.
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). (2011). Disaster Recovery Guidance Series:
Education Sector Recovery. GFDRR.: Author.
Gorski, P. (2005). Education equity and the digital divide. AACE Journal, 13(1), 3-45.
Gorski, P. C. (2009). Insisting on digital equity: Reframing the dominant discourse on multicultural
education and technology. Urban Education, 44(3), 348-364.
Gubbels, J., van der Put, C. E., & Assink, M. (2019). Risk factors for school absenteeism and dropout: a
meta-analytic review. Journal of youth and adolescence, 48(9), 1637-1667.
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational
research, 50(3), 277-289.
Hatzichristou, C., Lianos, P., Lampropoulou, A. (2019). Supporting Vulnerable Groups of Students in
Educational Settings: University Initiatives and Partnerships. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art,
12(4), 65–78.
Heck, K. E., & Parker, J. D. (2002). Family structure, socioeconomic status, and access to health care for
children. Health Services Research, 37(1), 171.
Helme, S., & Lamb, S. (2011). Closing the School Completion Gap for Indigenous Students. (Resource Sheet
No. 6). Canberra, ACT.: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).
Hoven, C. W., Duarte, C. S., Lucas, C. P., Wu, P., Mandell, D. J., Goodwin, R. D., ... & Musa, G. J. (2005).
Psychopathology among New York City public school children 6 months after September 11. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 62(5), 545-551.
Jack, G. (2010). Place matters: The significance of place attachments for children's well-being. British
Journal of Social Work, 40(3), 755-771.
John Eastwood, E. D. (2019). Making a realist turn: Applying a Critical Realist Translational Social
Epidemiology methodology to the design and evaluation of complex integrated care
interventions. International journal of integrated care, 19(3).
Johnson, V. A., & Ronan, K. R. (2014). Classroom responses of New Zealand school teachers following the
2011 Christchurch earthquake. Natural Hazards, 72(2), 1075-1092.
Jones, R. T., Frary, R., Cunningham, P., Weddle, J. D., & Kaiser, L. (2001). The psychological effects of
Hurricane Andrew on ethnic minority and Caucasian children and adolescents: A case study. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(1), 103.
Karim, A., & Noy, I. (April, 2014). Poverty and natural disasters: A meta-analysis. (SEF Working Paper).
Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10063/3234.
King, T. A., & Tarrant, R. A. (2013). Children's knowledge, cognitions and emotions surrounding natural
disasters: An investigation of year 5 students. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 1,
1-11.
Kostelny, K., & Wessells, M. (2008). The protection and psychosocial well-being of young children following
armed conflict: Outcome research on child-centered spaces in Northern Uganda. Journal of
Developmental Processes, 3, 13–25.
Kousky, C. (2016). Impacts of natural disasters on children. The Future of Children, 26(1), 73-92.
Kurtz, B. (2019). The Aftermath: A Culturally Responsive Mathematical Intervention To Aid Students
Affected By Natural Disasters (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
La Greca, A. M., Silverman, W. K., & Wasserstein, S. B. (1998). Children's predisaster functioning as a
predictor of posttraumatic stress following Hurricane Andrew. Journal of consulting and clinical
psychology, 66(6), 883.
Langah, G. M. (2011). Perceptions of IDP children and regular school children of class seven about schooling
in emergency situations: Case studies from Kashmor (Master’s thesis). Aga Khan University, Karachi,
Pakistan.
Layne, C. M., Saltzman, W. R., Poppleton, L., Burlingame, G. M., Pašalić, A., Duraković, E., . . . Pynoos, R. S.
(2008). Effectiveness of a school-based group psychotherapy program for war-exposed adolescents: A
randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47,
1048–1062.
Le Brocque, R., De Young, A., Montague, G., Pocock, S., March, S., Triggell, N., ... & Kenardy, J. (2017).
Schools and natural disaster recovery: the unique and vital role that teachers and education
professionals play in ensuring the mental health of students following natural disasters. Journal of
psychologists and counsellors in schools, 27(1), 1-23.
Leonard, L. J. (2001). From indignation to indifference: Teacher concerns about externally imposed
classroom interruptions. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(2), 103-109.
Lieber, M. (2017). Assessing the mental health impact of the 2011 Great Japan Earthquake, tsunami, and
radiation disaster on elementary and middle school children in the Fukushima Prefecture of
Japan. PLoS one, 12(1), e0170402.
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital
divide. New media & society, 9(4), 671-696.
Loayza, N. V., Olaberria, E., Rigolini, J., & Christiaensen, L. (2012). Natural disasters and growth: Going
beyond the averages. World Development, 40(7), 1317-1336.
Lorains, S. (2012). Child and Family Vulnerability Report: February 2012. Greater Shepparton City Council.:
Author.
Maclean, J. C., Popovici, I., & French, M. T. (2016). Are natural disasters in early childhood associated with
mental health and substance use disorders as an adult? Social Science & Medicine, 151, 78-91.
Marmot, M., Allen, J., Goldblatt, P., Boyce, T., McNeish, D., Grady, M., & Geddes, I. (2010). Fair Society,
Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review. UK: University College London.
McIntosh, T. (2019). Natural Disaster. European Journal of Educational Sciences, (Special), 67-75.
McManus, T. (2005). School trauma!: Developing a trauma management plan for your school. Australian
Educational Leader, 27(4), 34.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole Jr, L. J. (2009). The dog that didn't bark: How public managers handle environmental
shocks. Public Administration, 87(3), 485-502.
Meier, K. J., O’Toole Jr, L. J., & Hicklin, A. (2010). I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain: Public management and
performance after a natural disaster. Administration & Society, 41(8), 979-1003.
Meng, X., & Gregory, R. G. (2002). The impact of interrupted education on subsequent educational
attainment: A cost of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Economic Development and Cultural
Change, 50(4), 935-959.
Mercuri, A., & Angelique, H. L. (2004). Children's responses to natural, technological, and na-tech
disasters. Community Mental Health Journal, 40(2), 167-175.
Mockrin, M. H., Stewart, S. I., Radeloff, V. C., & Hammer, R. B. (2016). Recovery and adaptation after
wildfire on the Colorado Front Range (2010–12). International Journal of Wildland Fire, 25(11), 1144-
1155.
Moon, C., Kavanagh, A., Jeffrey, J., Gebbels, J., & Korsgaard, K. (2016, September). Social Entrepreneurship
and Disruptive Innovation: Evaluating the use of Rumie’s Free Educational Software in Seven
Developing Economies. In Proceedings of The 11th European Conference on Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, Finland.
Mudavanhu, C. (2014). The impact of flood disasters on child education in Muzarabani District,
Zimbabwe. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 6(1), 1-8.
Mutch, C. (2015). The role of schools in disaster settings: Learning from the 2010–2011 New Zealand
earthquakes. International Journal of Educational Development, 41, 283-291.
Nag, S., Vagh, S. B., Dulay, K. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2019). Home language, school language and children's
literacy attainments: A systematic review of evidence from low‐and middle‐income countries. Review
of Education, 7(1), 91-150.
Nastasi, B. K., Jayasena, A., Summerville, M., & Borja, A. P. (2011). Facilitating long-term recovery from
natural disasters: Psychosocial programming for tsunami-affected schools of Sri Lanka. School
Psychology International, 32(5), 512-532.
Nicolai, S., Hine, S., & Wales, J. (2016). A common platform for education in emergencies and protracted
crises: Evidence paper. London: Overseas Development Institute. ODI.: Author.
Norris, F. H., Friedman, M. J., Watson, P. J., Byrne, C. M., Diaz, E., & Kaniasty, K. (2002). 60,000 disaster
victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981–2001. Psychiatry:
Interpersonal and biological processes, 65(3), 207-239.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). A framework to guide an
education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. OECD.: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Educational responses to covid-
19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration. OECD.: Author.
Osofsky, J. D., Osofsky, H. J., & Harris, W. W. (2007). Katrina's children: Social policy considerations for
children in disasters. Social Policy Report, 21(1), 1-20.
Pane, J. F., McCaffrey, D. F., Kalra, N., & Zhou, A. J. (2008). Effects of student displacement in Louisiana
during the first academic year after the hurricanes of 2005. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 13(2-3), 168-211.
Parker, A., Edelman, A., Carman, K., & Finucane, M. (2019). On the Need for Prospective Disaster Survey
Panels. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 1-3.
Peek, L., & Richardson, K. (2010). In their own words: Displaced children's educational recovery needs after
Hurricane Katrina. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 4(S1), S63-S70.
Pfefferbaum, B., Pfefferbaum, R. L., & Van Horn, R. L. (2018). Involving children in disaster risk reduction:
the importance of participation. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 9(2).
Picou, J. S., & Marshall, B. K. (2007). Social impacts of Hurricane Katrina on displaced K–12 students and
educational institutions in coastal Alabama counties: some preliminary observations. Sociological
spectrum, 27(6), 767-780.
Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2008). Issues and challenges related to digital equity. In International handbook
of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 765-778). Springer, Boston, MA.
Sacerdote, B. (2012). When the saints go marching out: Long-term outcomes for student evacuees from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(1), 109-35.
Save The Children. (2019). Federal Government: 2019-20 Pre-Budget Submission. Carlton, VIC.: Author.
Scott, R. L., Knoth, R. L., Beltran‐Quiones, M., & Gomez, N. (2003). Assessment of psychological functioning
in adolescent earthquake victims in Colombia using the MMPI‐A. Journal of Traumatic Stress: Official
Publication of The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, 16(1), 49-57.
Skoufias, E. (2003). Economic crises and natural disasters: Coping strategies and policy implications. World
development, 31(7), 1087-1102.
Seyle, D. C., Widyatmoko, C. S., & Silver, R. C. (2013). Coping with natural disasters in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia: A study of elementary school teachers. School Psychology International, 34(4), 387-404.
Shah, Ritesh. 2015. “Protecting children in a situation of ongoing conflict: Is resilience sufficient as the end
product?” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(2):179–185.
Shannon, M. P., Lonigan, C. J., Finch Jr, A. J., & Taylor, C. M. (1994). Children exposed to disaster: I.
Epidemiology of post-traumatic symptoms and symptom profiles. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(1), 80-93.
Shaw, J. A., Applegate, B., Tanner, S., Perez, D., Rothe, E., Campo-Bowen, A. E., & Lahey, B. L. (1995).
Psychological effects of Hurricane Andrew on an elementary school population. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(9), 1185-1192.
Steele, F., Sigle-Rushton, W., & Kravdal, Ø. (2009). Consequences of family disruption on children’s
educational outcomes in Norway. Demography, 46(3), 553-574.
Thomas, J., Barraket, J., Wilson, C. K., Cook, K., Louie, Y. M., Holcombe-James, I., Ewing, S., & MacDonald, T.
(2018). Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index: 2018. RMIT
University, Melbourne.: Telstra.
Thordardottir, E. B., Valdimarsdottir, U. A., Hansdottir, I., Hauksdóttir, A., Dyregrov, A., Shipherd, J. C., ... &
Gudmundsdottir, B. (2016). Sixteen-year follow-up of childhood avalanche survivors. European journal
of psychotraumatology, 7(0), 1-9.
United Nations (UN). (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030. Geneva,
Switzerland.: Author.
Van der Kolk, B. (2007). Developmental impact of childhood trauma. In L. Kirmayer, R. Lemelson, & M.
Barad (Eds.), Understanding trauma: Integrating biological, clinical and cultural perspectives (p. 224).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vaughan, T., & Caldwell, B. J. (2017). Impact of the creative arts indigenous parental engagement (CAIPE)
program. Australian art education, 38(1), 76.
Victorian Government. (2013). Emergency Management Act, 2013. Melbourne, Vic.: Author.
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the
digital divide. Educational policy, 18(4), 562-588.
Watterston, J., & O’Connell, M. (2019). Those Who Disappear: The Australian education problem nobody
wants to talk about. Melbourne Graduate School of Education.: Author.
Winthrop, R., & Kirk, J. (2008). Learning for a bright future: Schooling, armed conflict, and children’s well-
being. Comparative Education Review, 52, 639–661.
Zubrick, S. R., Mitrou, F., Lawrence, D., & Silburn, S. R. (2011). Maternal death and the onward psychosocial
circumstances of Australian Aboriginal children and young people. Psychological medicine, 41(9), 1971-
1980.
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
100 Leicester Street, The University of Melbourne, 3010 VIC
Phone: +61 3 8344 8394
Email: CPE-enquiries@unimelb.edu.au

Supporting Vulnerable Children

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supporting Vulnerable Children

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Centre for Program Evaluation

Melbourne Graduate School of Education

Supporting Vulnerable Children

Unsuccessful Education pathway

Figure 1. Population education life course model

Recovery and Support: what does the evidence suggest?

Recovery takes time

Invest in Second contact

School, Teacher & Community Collaboration

Vulnerability and population perspective

Unsuccessful Education pathway

Figure 3.Population education life course model

Poverty and families at risk

Children with additional physical, cognitive, emotional or behaviour needs

Early years development

School disengagement, refusers and absenteeism

Learning and achievement

Numeracy & Literacy

Recovery and Support: Evidence suggestions

Recovery takes time

Invest in Second contact

School, Teacher & Community Collaboration

1. Understand the context: Successful recovery is based on an understanding of the

1. Availability of technological infrastructure,

Recovery needs a collective response that builds long term relationships

Making school and schooling inviting for families

Ensure ongoing Communication

You might also like