The arrival of the pandemic in early 2020 didn’t just clear the streets; it emptied classrooms. For weeks and months, pre-primary and primary schools that had been reliable anchors for families suddenly became symbols of disruption. To understand the scale—and the unevenness—of these educational shocks, policymakers and researchers leaned on more than headlines or ministry press releases. ISIC 8510, covering pre-primary and primary education, provided a way to put structure around chaos.
The initial step is to build a roster of all institutions registered under ISIC 8510. National and regional education authorities, as well as business registries, typically hold these records. Comparing the number of operational schools month-by-month through 2020 offers the first layer of insight: when and where did closures spike, and how quickly did reopenings (if any) follow?
But mapping closures alone doesn’t capture the full picture. The transition to remote learning was anything but uniform. To measure this shift, analysts need to bring together enrollment figures—how many children were officially on the rolls of each ISIC 8510 institution—with new data from household surveys. Ministries of education, local authorities, and sometimes the schools themselves kept tabs on student engagement, but often only at a surface level. Household surveys filled some gaps, asking parents or guardians whether their children were participating in online or alternative learning, and—if not—why.
Combining these datasets provides a more nuanced view. Schools registered under ISIC 8510 may have technically remained “open” in the administrative sense, but household data could reveal steep drops in real participation, especially in areas with poor connectivity or limited access to digital devices. Conversely, regions where a high share of students engaged with remote learning—even if physical classrooms were closed—hint at greater resilience.
Analysts can use this integrated approach to flag the greatest risks: districts with many ISIC 8510 institutions but a deep engagement gap, or where rapid school closures correlated with falling enrollment and rising dropout indicators in subsequent terms. Mapping these patterns allows policymakers to target interventions—whether with technology, meal support, or teacher training—to the places where students are falling furthest behind.
Of course, the process is far from perfect. Enrollment records may lag reality, and not all families respond to household surveys. Remote learning itself is a spectrum, ranging from well-structured online classes to little more than printed packets or radio lessons. Still, this triangulated method, anchored in ISIC 8510 and grounded in the lived experience of households, gives a more textured understanding than any single source could provide.
What stands out in retrospect is just how resourceful and adaptive many schools, families, and communities became—sometimes in spite of the systems meant to support them. While the numbers show a story of disruption, they also surface the quieter storylines: resilience, creativity, and the ongoing challenge of keeping every child learning, no matter the circumstances.