What Drove Recovery? Comparing Pandemic-Era Challenges, Strategies, and Student Recovery Across School Sectors

• In Event: Autonomy and Variation in Charter School Systems: Governance, Practices, and Outcomes Across Contexts

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that charter schools performed comparably to, or slightly better than, traditional public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and substantially better in the years following (Kho et al., 2025; Zimmer et al., 2026). At the same time, a growing body of research has documented the wide range of challenges schools faced, including student learning loss, mental health, and staff, as well as the strategies schools adopted in response (Dela Cruz et al., 2024; Diliberti & Schwartz, 2024). However, there remains limited evidence on how these challenges and responses differed across public school sectors, and whether the greater autonomy afforded to charter schools translated into substantively different approaches or more effective strategies. 

This study examines how charter schools and traditional public schools responded to the pandemic and its aftermath, focusing on both the challenges they faced and the strategies they implemented to support students. We surveyed school leaders in charter schools and a matched sample of traditional public schools across Tennessee and Indiana. The survey captures a range of domains, including technology access and use, tutoring and academic interventions, extended learning time, supports for student physical and mental health, and staffing capacity and hiring practices. 

We begin with descriptive analyses that compare reported challenges and strategies across sectors. Preliminary findings from Tennessee indicate striking similarities across both sectors, including substantial increases in reported student behavioral and socioemotional challenges. Yet, some notable differences were observed. For example, while traditional public schools were more likely to offer summer school prior to the pandemic, this gap narrowed in the post-pandemic period. Additionally, although both sectors reported hiring new staff to address learning loss, charter schools reported hiring earlier during the pandemic. 

These descriptive findings provide insight into how sector differences in flexibility and governance may shape school responses during periods of disruption. However, descriptive comparisons alone cannot determine whether these strategies contributed to differences in student outcomes. To address this, we extend the analysis by merging survey responses with longitudinal student-level achievement data in both states. Using these linked data, we conduct mediation analyses to examine which strategies are associated with improved student outcomes in the public sector (TPS and charter combined) and whether these relationships differ between charter schools and traditional public schools. We have prepared the linked student-level datasets and expect to have full results available in advance of the APPAM 2026 conference. 

This study contributes to ongoing policy discussions about school choice and educational recovery by extending studies on whether sectors differed in performance to how and why those differences may have emerged. Beyond sector comparisons, our study contributes to an understanding of the practices influencing recovery from learning loss across the public school sector. By identifying the strategies best associated with improved outcomes, this work provides actionable evidence for policymakers and practitioners seeking to continue supporting student recovery among all public schools (charter and TPS).

Authors

• Mark Berends, University of Notre Dame
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Julie Dallavis, University of Notre Dame
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Margaret Dawson-Amoah, University of Southern California
  Presenting Author

• Danielle Duffy Duffy-Chipman, University of Kentucky
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Joseph J Ferrare, University of Washington Bothell
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Adam Kho, University of Kentucky
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Nicolas Pardo, University of Southern California
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Stephen Ponisciak, University of Notre Dame
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Shelby Leigh Smith, University of Southern California
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Joseph Waddington, University of Notre Dame
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Ron W Zimmer, University of Kentucky
  Non-Presenting Co-Author