1 Introduction

A digital transition in education has been underway for decades and many countries had published digital education policies in the decade or so before the Covid-19 pandemic (OECD, 2023. However, the pandemic was perceived by organisations such as the European Union, the World Bank and the OECD as the ‘turning point’ for digital education, highlighting both the potential of the use of digital technologies in schools and the need to be ready for digital education (EC, 2020; OECD, 2021, World Bank, 2020). Many countries published additional policies or guidelines when education systems shifted to emergency remote learning during the Covid-19 pandemic (OECD, 2023) and both the EU and the OECD prioritised digital education policies as part of the recovery from the pandemic and as the way forward in education (EC, 2020; OECD, 2020).

Four years since the onset the Covid-19 pandemic, it remains unclear if the pandemic was ‘a turning point’ for digital education. Instead, as the fallout from the pandemic becomes increasingly more evident, we know the prolonged disruption of schooling has exposed and amplified the persistent inequalities and shortcomings of current education systems (Betthäuser et al., 2023; Byrant, Child & Dorn, 2022; OECD, 2020). Post-pandemic, the disruption of society and education has continued as the world lurches from crisis to crisis. Political instability, social unrest, mass migration, war and severe weather events threaten global stability, putting tremendous pressure on all systems including education to cope with the challenges these bring. Alongside this, the pace of digital innovation has further accelerated. Most recently, the explosion of generative AI has raised the awareness of policy makers of the disruptive nature of advanced technology and of its imminent impact on our societies. These challenges faced by education systems can be considered the new realities of schooling and it is likely other realities will emerge. However, it cannot be expected education systems experience the same realities or do so in the same way. Neither can it be expected that the long-term policy responses to digital education are the same across countries. Thus, to make sense of the changes provoked by Covid-19 and its immediate aftermath, we need to consider digital education policy responses in the context of the realities faced by education systems and reflect if these policies align with these realities. This was the focus of Thematic Working Group 6 (TWG6) at EDUsummIT 2023. Representing Australia, Canada (Quebec), India, Ireland, Italy Japan and Sri-Lanka, the group was concerned with two key questions:

  1. 1.

    Post Covid-19, what are the new realities of schooling?

  2. 2.

    How have digital educational policies changed in response to the new realities of schooling?

This paper seeks to answer these questions, extending the discussions at EDUsummIT 2023 and applying a theoretical lens that enhances and deepens the discussion. Beginning by outlining the challenges of policy creation and enactment in education, it then examines the types of policy change that can be brought about by crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Following an account of the research methods, the findings critically review the new realities of schooling post-Covid-19 as identified across the seven countries/jurisdictions before examining both the evolution of digital education policies across the countries/jurisdictions and how digital policy has responded to the new realities. The final section discusses the implications for policymaking post-Covid-19.

2 Policy Change and Enactment in Education

Effective and durable policy change is a complex process requiring political commitment, technical expertise, and significant funding (Dellagnelo, 2023). Moreover, processes of change cannot be enacted or understood in isolation, they must be considered in the context of the entire education system (Fullan, 2013; Kozma, 2005, 2008, 2011) (See Fig. 1). Butler et al., (2018) explored the issue of alignment in education systems, noting that this requires coherence of purpose, policy, and practice at three levels (macro/national, meso/school, and micro/teacher). Moreover, desired outcomes (i.e. the purpose of schooling) must be explicitly stated, and these outcomes must be built into policies and programmes designed to implement them (Kozma, 2005).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The relationship between purpose of education and policy at each level

Full size image

In terms of policy design, systemic alignment or coherence across national policies and strategies is essential for policy effectiveness and effective change (Kozma, 2011). It entails not only aligning the messages offered by policy texts but thinking about how these policy texts might be designed to support schools in their ongoing efforts to construct coherence (Spillane, 2022). A lack of policy coherence leads to fragmentation and the perception of policies as a set of separate elements (Mallows, 2015) resulting in disconnects as policies are interpreted and put into practice across the various levels of the system.

Policy enactment is as important as the policy design and key to policy success in reaching schools and classrooms (Golden, 2020). Enactment is a complex, evolving, and multidirectional process that involves many stakeholders across the various levels of a system as policy is put into practice (Viennet & Pont, 2017).

Governance structures are also crucial to ensure coordination and alignment within government departments and with other stakeholders (EC, 2023; OCED, 2023). Among the key findings of Conrads et al., (2017) are that specific governance structures can help in formalising stakeholder involvement, promoting uptake and delivering results. They also found digital education policies are more sustainable if governance structures are responsive to implementing necessary changes while ensuring continuity over time.

Understanding the critical role of context and the significant variability that exists among educational systems and structures cannot be underestimated and it is important to locate policy within a wider context. Those presenting policy may interpret its content differently to those receiving policy– a single policy may be better understood therefore as a “plurality of policies” that emerge and develop as the policy process moves from design to enactment (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p.23). Consequently, the key to successful enactment is the development of a shared understanding among stakeholders as well as inclusive stakeholder engagement. Tensions are inevitable, between a teacher’s judgement of good practice and emotional commitment to care for and meet the needs of students on the one hand, and the requirements of different agents and agencies on the other (Ball, 2003). Stumbling blocks may also arise where stakeholders such as school leadership and teachers are not conversant with the purpose of policy directives, are guided by their own beliefs and norms, and/or where there is not a conducive environment (Golden, 2020; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003). Enactment of policy also depends substantially on contextual factors including the provision of digital infrastructure in schools, the production and distribution of digital materials, teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical competences, teacher professional learning as well as professional learning opportunities and ongoing supports for school leadership (Conrads et al., 2017; Dellagnelo, 2023). According to Kennisnet (Schouwenburg & Kappert, 2019), the effectiveness of digital educational policies depends on a balanced execution of these activities. These activities often require different expertise than those traditionally available at ministries (Dellagnelo, 2023).

2.1 Crisis and Policy Change in Education

Many policies emerge as a response to a public problem or a crisis that requires a solution. Although the role of crises as catalysts for policy change is well documented (O’Connor, 2014), it is still unclear as to what type of policy change a crisis, such as that generated by Covid-19, may evoke in the education sector (Hogan et al., 2022; Zancajo et al.,; 2022).

At a general level, policy change means the replacement of existing policies. Zancajo et al. (2022) outline (a) the way types of policy change can be classified and (b) patterns of policy change. Drawing on the work of Beland and Powell (2016), Zancajo et al. (2022) classify policy change as (i) the absence of meaningful change, (ii) incremental change, and (iii) radical change. Ranging from higher to lower intensity, radical change refers to a fundamental change in the strategic direction of a policy. It occurs at the level of policy goals and implies a significant change or overhaul of policy. Incremental change involves gradual improvements or innovations related to the adoption of new policy guidelines or strategies. However, the overall goals of the policy remain constant. At the lowest intensity, absence of meaningful change consists of tinkering with existing policies, without replacing them or the goals they aim to achieve (Beland & Powell, 2016). Incremental changes can cumulate into significant institutional transformation. Also, incremental changes which follow each other can rapidly lead to a radical change of the existing status quo sooner than big, but irregular changes (Sinko, 2016).

Referring to Mahoney and Thelen (2009), Zancajo et al. (2022) similarly identify four patterns of policy change:

  1. 1.

    Displacement: occurs when the introduction of new policy guidelines/strategies result in the substitution of previous ones

  2. 2.

    Layering: governments adopt new policy guidelines/strategies in addition to those in existence

  3. 3.

    Drift: existing policy guidelines/strategies have a different impact due to changes in the environment

  4. 4.

    Conversion: existing policy guidelines/strategies are intentionally deployed and enacted differently.

A review of the extant literature by Hogan et al., (2022) found that most crises tend not to lead to radical change but are instead followed by policy continuity or incremental change. However, they stress that it is difficult to anticipate in such a short period, which policy changes will sustain post-Covid-19 and how; and which will revert to pre-pandemic status. This paper thus contributes to understanding policy change post-Covid-19.

3 Research Methodology

A multi-layered approach was adopted to answering the research questions and centred on extensive research by the authors prior to and after EDUsummIT 2023. The work began as the world was still emerging from the Covid-19 pandemic and as education systems were grappling to recover from the disruption it caused. Initial discussions revealed that although experiences of schooling during the Covid-19 pandemic were well documented across our respective countries/jurisdictions, little had been documented about digital education policy and enactment in the aftermath of the pandemic. Thus, as a starting point, group members constructed case studies of their respective countries/jurisdictions in which they addressed questions relating to digital education at three different time intervals:

  1. 1.

    Pre-2020: Before the Covid-19 pandemic

  2. 2.

    2020–2021: During the emergency response period of the Covid-19 pandemic

  3. 3.

    2022-date: Since the full-time return to schools after the Covid-19 pandemic (See Table 1)

Table 1 Prior to meeting at EDUsummIT 2023, group members constructed case studies relating to digital education in their respective countries/jurisdictions
Full size table

Seven case studies representing the seven countries/jurisdictions of the group members were completed, providing a ‘snapshot’ of the evolution of digital education policy and policy context within each of the countries/jurisdictions. The case studies formed the basis for discussion at EDUsummIT 2023. During the three-day EDUsummIT, discussions centred on the (i) identification of emerging trends and challenges in education systems, which although varying across regions and contexts, were considered the new realities of schooling (See Fig. 2), and (ii) analysis of digital education policy developments in response to these new realities.

Fig. 2
figure 2

New Realities of schooling as identified by TWG6

Full size image

Post EDUsummIT 2023, group members refined and further developed their case studies to reflect and build on the work of the meeting. These were completed by December 2023 and a cross-case analysis of the seven studies was subsequently carried out by the lead authors. This led to a set of overarching themes that were deemed to explicate how digital educational policies are aligned with the new realities of schooling in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. The findings are presented in the sections that follow. Drawing on contextual knowledge of the group members and supported by the literature, the first presents the new realities of schooling post-Covid-19 as identified across the seven countries/jurisdictions. The second section presents the findings from the cross-case analysis highlighting the evolution of digital education policies across countries/jurisdictions.

4 Digital Educational Policies and the New Realities of Schooling

4.1 The New Realities of Schooling

Discussion identified that while some new realities had emerged (e.g. teacher shortages, greater acceptance and use of digital technologies in teaching, focus on well-being), the ‘new realities’ were for the most part an exacerbation of the realities and inequities that existed prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. These included access to devices and connectivity, but also the digital competence of teachers, learners, and the wider community. While these realities varied across regions and contexts, the common themes that emerged (c.f. Fig. 2 above) are discussed below.

4.1.1 Exacerbation of Existing Inequalities

The pandemic brought heightened awareness of the equity issues and challenges across school systems. The rapid shift to the digital during school closures not only highlighted major differences in access to digital technologies across countries and across social groups within countries but it exacerbated effects of the digital divide, and amplified the social divide (Bryant, Child & Dorn, 2022; Stone, 2023). The cumulative effect on students’ academic achievement has been significant, directly impacting learning losses and widening existing achievement gaps—students from poorer countries and low socioeconomic backgrounds have experienced the largest learning losses (Betthäuser et al., 2023; Di Pietro, 2023; UNESCO, 2023). Economic and racial educational inequalities have also been amplified while broader social and emotional impacts include rising mental-health concerns, reports of violence against children, rising obesity, and rising levels of chronic absenteeism and dropouts (Byrant, Child & Dorn, 2022).

Not surprisingly, the need to deal with the learning loss experienced during school closures was prioritised in most countries/jurisdictions. This has given rise to a “let’s get back to basics attitude” (i.e. students have missed so much time at school, they need to make up for lost ground). Consequently, this has led some education authorities to fund additional targeted programmes to help children catch-up on learning lost during the pandemic (e.g., Australia/Victoria, Ireland, Canada/Quebec). A survey conducted by UNESCO, UNICEF and World Bank (UNESCO, 2021) found initiatives such as remedial learning programmes and/or the adjustment of the academic calendar to either accelerate or postpone education progress for students to be the main course of action implemented in 50% of South Asian countries. Some recent reports question the effectiveness of such extra-tutoring programmes e.g. two Australian reports indicate no significant impact on students' learning results compared to similar non-tutored studentsFootnote 1.Footnote 2

4.1.2 Student Well-being

Beyond learning, the group stressed increasing concern relating to the adverse impact of the Covid-19 crisis upon student well-being and mental health. While evidence suggests increased levels of childhood depression, loneliness, and anxiety had already been identified before the pandemic (Sellers et al., 2019), the pandemic led to a worldwide increase in mental health problems, including widespread depression and anxiety (WHO, 2022). In efforts to address these problems, some countries/regions introduced initiatives to support student wellbeing in the immediate aftermath of schools reopening. For example, 75% of countries in South Asia reported small-scale or significant additional measures for student wellbeing (UNICEF, 2023). While we don’t yet know the long-term impact of Covid-19 related policies (e.g. school closure) on young people’s mental health and well-being (Duan et al., 2024), early indications are concerning. Reports such as EUniWell (Vallance & Millars, 2023) call for policies to prioritise the well-being of young people in the post-pandemic recovery.

The impact of social media on the mental health of young people is also garnering attention. In particular, the rhetoric around causal relationships between increased social media usage and mental health issues such as anxiety and depressive symptoms is widely publicised (Lee et al., 2022). In 2023, the American Surgeon General released the health authority’s strongest advisory yet about the risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of young people by social media. He called for “urgent action”, stating that we need to “gain a better understanding of the full impact of social media use” to “minimise the harms of social media platforms, and create safer, healthier online environments to protect children” (The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory, 2023).

4.1.3 Rebalancing of Approaches to Education

As educational ecosystems readjust post-Covid-19, there has been increased uptake of digital teaching practices in some countries (India, Italy, Australia) whereas others have reverted to pre-pandemic practices or have adopted ‘back to basics’ practices (e.g., Canada, Ireland). Tensions between the use of active pedagogies and didactic teaching as a quick fix’ for learning loss have also emerged. In addition, and contrary to what may have been anticipated (i.e. increased blended / hybrid learning), all group members reported that K-12 mainstream schools in their countries/jurisdictions had reverted to full onsite face-to-face teaching post-Covid-19. However, some exceptions were noted. Online provision continues to be available in exceptional cases in Quebec and there has been increased interest and continuing demand from some students to continue to engage with schooling online in Australia. For example, enrolments in Virtual Schooling in Australia increased by 20% in 2021 (Heffernan, 2022). Online provision has also expanded in Ireland providing access to a wider range of curricula for secondary school students in remote areas. The Gaeltacht eHubFootnote 3 provides students in Gaelic speaking areas with the opportunity to access curricula online, that otherwise would not be available to them (e.g. physics).

4.1.4 Changing Face of Teaching Profession

Most countries/jurisdictions have witnessed evidence of teacher burnout and shortages in tandem with the changing approaches to initial teacher education, including:

  1. 1.

    Reductionist (shorter) programmes of Initial Teacher Education (ITE)

  2. 2.

    Deprofessionalisation of profession (teacher as technician).

While the group highlighted teacher burnout as an emerging issue, the work of Grant-Rankin (2022) signals teacher burnout as a prevailing issue even before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Drawing on studies by Doghonadze (2021) and Diliberti, Schwartz, & Grant (2021), Grant-Rankin reports that teachers surveyed around the world during the pandemic cited educational (for example, excessive work volume and overstimulation), environmental, student, technological, and administrative reasons for burnout—just as they did prior to 2020. However, other studies in which teachers were surveyed specifically about burnout in spring 2020 (Hamilton et al., 2020), autumn 2020, and spring 2021 (Kaufman et al., 2021), indicated teachers were significantly more likely to experience burnout by spring 2021 than they were one year previously.

Teacher burnout exacerbates the existing problem experienced in many jurisdictions of teacher retention within the profession beyond five years (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019). Government response to the issue of teacher shortages is generally to reduce the requirements for entry. For example, Canada introduced shorter teacher education programmes for certification. While this may seem to solve the problem in the short term, arguably it does so at the expense of teacher quality and the problem of continuous upskilling is ever present. Such reductionist policy is both an erosion of the teaching profession and a de-professionalisation of the teacher. It presents a need for competitive compensation, professional learning opportunities, and a supportive work environment to address the challenge.

4.1.5 Teacher Digital Competence

While the pandemic brought a renewed focus on the use of digital technologies in schools, and there was considerable investment in infrastructure (devices, connectivity, management software and platforms) and content development in all countries/jurisdictions, less attention was accorded to developing teacher digital competence. There was strong agreement in the group that while the development of teacher digital competence had been a systemic need long before the Covid-19 crisis, the pandemic had brought the issue into sharper focus. During Covid-19, the shift to digital learning was challenging for many teachers, particularly for those who felt they did not have the skills required.

At policy level, there is increasing emphasis in developing student digital competence and teachers are identified as the key agents to support this development (OECD, 2023). For example, as stated in DEAP 2021–2027, the development of teacher competence is vital to support the effective and pedagogical use of digital technologies in ways that ensure quality, equitable, inclusive education for all students (EC, 2020, p.5). However, although some countries have professional standards with respect to digital competences (e.g. AustraliaFootnote 4, CanadaFootnote 5), group consensus mirrored the findings of the OECD (2023) report which found such standards tend to “remain broad and high-level, leaving significant room for interpretation on how systems understand, develop and evaluate these skills in practice” (OECD, 2023, p.4). Not surprisingly, the need for ongoing investment in professional learning programmes that enable teachers and school leaders to develop the necessary digital competences in practice was recommended by the group.

4.1.6 Wider Societal and Economic Conditions

In the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, societal, economic, climate and political developments across the world have impacted and displaced many people. The impact of climate change has caused devastating fires, floods and droughts across the globe. Political instability is a feature in many jurisdictions e.g., Sri Lanka. In Europe, the war in Ukraine has led to a refugee emergency and significant disruption in supplies and costs of energy, food, and other materials to Europe, Middle Eastern and African countries. The effects are profound and ultimately disruptive to schooling.

4.1.7 Emerging Technologies

Group members shared a belief that schooling is at a watershed moment in relation to the use of digital technologies in schools, especially, in relation to the use of AI and specifically, generative AI. Given the rate of development of AI, it was not surprising to find policy making regarding the use of AI in education in many countries is in a state of flux. In some countries such as Japan, AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT) are being introduced to schools in a controlled manner, with guidelines to ensure ethical use and awareness of the technology’s limitations and potential risksFootnote 6. This approach is thought to be a balanced view of embracing technological advancements while being mindful of their impact on traditional learning and critical thinking skillsFootnote 7. Despite an initial ban on the use of AI in schools in AustraliaFootnote 8, a national framework has been developed to provide guidance and support in using AI safely and ethically (Australian Government, 2023). Most other countries have not yet developed policies or guidelines. Although AI is mentioned at national level policy in India and Ireland, there have been no other developments to date. In the absence of policy, the Asian Development Bank in Sri Lanka has funded ‘smart classrooms’ in many urban schools to enable teachers and student to experience using AI and Chat GPT.

4.2 Digital Education Policy: Before Covid-19, During Covid-19 and Post Covid-19

As schools grapple with new realities, there is a need to explore if and how current policies align with these realities. Findings from the analysis of the digital education policy developments in the seven case studies are outlined below at three stages: Before Covid-19 pandemic; During Covid-19 pandemic, and Post Covid-19 pandemic. Serendipitously, an OECD report published in December 2023, reflects on the lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic and provides an overview of countries’ digital education strategies and the changes in these strategies since 2019 across OECD member states. The report thus provided a useful backdrop against which to consider and discuss our findings.

4.2.1 Before Covid-19

Before-Covid-19, digital education policies existed in five of the authors’ countries (Ireland, Italy, Japan, Australia, Canada). In India, a draft National Education Policy was published in 2019 while in Sri Lanka, although digital technologies had been introduced to schools to enhance digital literacy, this happened without a supporting digital education policy. As was the case with the OECD countries (OECD, 2023) the EduSummIT countries’ digital education policies were mostly part of broader national digital innovation strategies, seeking both to leverage the power of digital technologies to solve “quality, equity and efficiency issues in educational systems” (van der Vlies, 2020, p1) and to equip the future generation with digital skills and tools to prepare for the fast-paced digital society. To varying degrees, these policies were structured around “big topic ideas” (OECD, 2023, p. 39) and share common foci on physical infrastructure (connectivity and devices), school management systems, the use of digital technologies for teaching, learning and assessment, the provision of digital content, teacher professional learning and the development of digital competence of teachers and students.

Countries such as Australia have had successive and developmental policies for almost three decades (e.g. Australia: MCEETYA, 1999; MCEETYA, 2008; Mparntwe, 2019) whereas for others, digital education policies were more recent developments or had re-emerged after a significant time lag. The Digital Strategy for Schools in Ireland (DES, 2015) represented the first digital strategy since 2001 and The National Education Policy (2020) in India was the first since 1986.

Across countries/jurisdictions, policies can be differentiated by the availability of supporting implementation plans and the allocation of funding. In Japan, the Global and Innovation Gateway for All (GIGA) funded the provision of a device (tablet or laptop) to all students in primary and lower secondary schools (FY2019: 231.8 billion JPY; FY2020: 0.5 billion JPY). A computer-based testing system, MEXCBT, has also been introduced nationally. Similarly, the Digital Education Revolution (DER) in Australia in 2008 was supported by $2.4 AUD billion in total with $1.4 AUD billion allocated for ICT equipment and $40 AUD million to teacher professional learning (Parliament of Australia, 2011). In contrast, funding for digital education was not prioritised across Sri Lanka and India.

Varying degrees of autonomy are similarly evident across countries regarding formulation and implementation of digital education policy. Canada and Japan have a decentralised digital education policy. Provincial and territorial governments in Canada devise their own policy and approaches. For example, although the Digital Action Plan for Education has been published in Quebec, decisions relating to infrastructure are made at regional level (prefectures & municipalities). Directives in India are made at national and state level while in other countries (Sri Lanka), directives are made centrally by government. However, even within centralised systems there can be a high degree of variability. Schools in Ireland for example, have a high degree of autonomy regarding centrally provided funding with guidance provided by the national education ministry.

In line with the findings of the OECD (2023), very few countries/jurisdictions monitored and evaluated their investments/policy implementation in digital education. Ireland had begun some process of evaluation in the form of a three-year longitudinal study of the implementation of its digital strategy (DES, 2017a; 2017b).

4.2.2 During Covid-19

During the periods of school closure that occurred between 2020 and 2022, a ‘war-like response’ (Shapiro, 2021) was implemented across most countries/jurisdictions and the uptake of digital technologies for teaching and learning was accelerated. During the pandemic, all governments (even those who had not previously prioritised digital learning) focused on facilitating accessible remote learning and allocated additional funding towards the provision of remote and online learning. Across countries, this primarily entailed the procurement of digital resources to support this type of teaching and learning and typically included digital learning platforms, TV channels and digital content.

  1. 1.

    In Sri Lanka, the Ministry of Education, in partnership with internet service providers, activated its web-based learning platform, e-thaksalawa (e-school). This provided a range of content for grades 1 to 13—textbooks, syllabi, teacher instruction manuals, subject-related educational software, revision question papers and supplementary reading material. Access was free and available in Sinhala, Tamil and EnglishFootnote 9. In addition, two public television networks aired educational programmes (Rupavahini and ITN (Independent Television Network)) and several private TV channels also provided TV lessons based on the school curriculum.

  2. 2.

    In India, an online learning platform, DIKSHA, was centrally funded through the Prime Minister’s e-Vidhya (e-education) initiative and designed to promote the continuation of teaching for 250 million school-going children. It hosted textbooks for students of grades 1–12, multi-lingual resources and MOOC courses for teachers and students. A television channel for each grade called SWAYAM PRABHA was also released. The use of community radio together with podcasts were organised especially for rural and low-connectivity area.

Countries such as Australia, Ireland and Japan also accelerated efforts to get devices to all students. In Japan, there were hastened efforts to ensure devices for each student and access to a high-speed network (based on the GIGA School Programme). Extra resources were provided to support home learning for low-income households. For example, special additional payments were made to help cover communication costs using existing subsidy programs (14.7 billion JPY/ $93,600.000, USD). MEXT also provided extra funding (229.2 billion JPY/ $1,500 billion, USD) as well as creating content and providing information on the importance of distance learning and specific examples of use. Building on its tradition of online education, Canada further developed existing supports. The Université TÉLUQ developed and offered, with Ministry of Education funding, distance learning professional development to teachers. In Ireland, government funding was provided on two occasions (late 2021 & May 2022) as part of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan to enable schools support those learners at risk of education disadvantage.

Despite ministerial focus to provide accessible remote learning, remote access to learning was unequal across all countries/jurisdictions. Efforts exposed the relative scarcity and basic nature of most digital resources and tools used in education in many countries (OECD, 2021; Vincent-Lancrin, 2022). Those school systems in countries (e.g. Australia, Ireland, Japan) that already had existing and comprehensive digital education policies along with infrastructure, curriculum and professional learning plans in place were better at navigating this space. However, even in these countries, not all schools were able to move seamlessly to remote online provision. In Australia, most independent schools already had 1:1 programmes, robust digital infrastructure and procedures with teachers confident in using digital technologies. These schools were generally satisfied with how they adjusted to the disruption of lockdown and the move to online learning (Independents Schools, 2021). However, independent schools comprise less than one third of Australian schools and those schools who were already disadvantaged continued to be disadvantaged (Wade et al., 2023).

From a policy perspective, four countries/jurisdictions in this study created new strategies or guidelines and one expanded an existing strategy. In three countries, the guidelines were published independently of existing policy which they displaced for the duration of the pandemic while in Canada the guidelines represented incremental improvement to existing policy:

  1. 1.

    Ireland: the Department of Education published guidelines for schools to provide support during school closures. Schools were mandated to develop and implement a plan to support remote teaching and learning and were advised of the supports available to assist them in this process.

  2. 2.

    India: Guidelines for digital education, “Pragyata” (MHRD, 2020), were centrally disseminated and further guidelines were issued by individual states. These guidelines aimed to support teachers, principals, and parents and included tips for online and blended teaching. For example, how to plan classes to accommodate diversity, use of flipped classroom and cyber security in online teaching and learning, and use of radio, TV and phones when learners did not have devices and/or online access.

  3. 3.

    Italy: During the two-year period, each school was required to develop an action plan called “School Plan for Digital Integrated Learning” detailing the approach and strategy to ensure teaching continuity and capitalise on the experience in distance and hybrid learning gained during the lockdown.

  4. 4.

    In Canada, the Quebec Ministry of Education published a pedagogical guide and a development continuum to facilitate the implementation of its Digital Reference FrameworkFootnote 10 and provide more support to teachers. The Pedagogical Guide was written to better inform all education and higher education stakeholders and assist them in their undertaking of pedagogical planning or educational projects with the aim of developing digital competency.

4.2.3 Post Covid-19

As the threat from the pandemic subsided and school systems fully reopened, many of the digital and online initiatives adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic were discontinued. Contrary to what had been anticipated, there was little evidence of a “turning point” (EC, 2020; OECD, 2021) for digital education. Instead, there was ‘rebalancing’ across many education systems as they confronted a range of emergent realities (e.g. the drive to go back to basics, learning loss, wider societal and political developments).

In the immediate aftermath of schools reopening, digital education slowed considerably or stopped in many jurisdictions. In Quebec, online learning was used in exceptional casesFootnote 11 only. In IrelandFootnote 12, there was a full return to in person teaching with negligible use of blended or hybrid modes for most students and while a greater acceptance of digital education was reported in India, little use was made of digital technologies for teaching and learning in schools. There was also evidence of policy displacement in some countries as ministries issued policy directives reversing the focus of online teaching. In Autumn 2022, the Italian minister stopped the Integrated Digital Education plan. Consequently, schools were not permitted to organise activities that included a distance education mode.

Policy development in relation to digital education has also slowed and while there is some evidence of implementation of the digital education policies launched prior to or during the pandemic across some countries/jurisdictions, for the most part, there is an absence of any meaningful change. Instead, the emphasis still tends to be on developing infrastructure:

  1. 1.

    The “Digital School 2022–2026”Footnote 13 strategy launched as part of the Recovery and Resilience Plan in Italy continued the focus on infrastructure-in June 2022, the Minister of Education adopted the “School Plan 4.0”Footnote 14 (Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan—FUTURA) to invest €2.1 billion to transform 100,000 traditional classrooms into what they have termed “innovative learning environments”.

  2. 2.

    Ireland launched a successor to the 2015 strategy (DES, 2015) in February 2022, the Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027 (DE, 2022). Two years later, an implementation plan had not been issued. Funding for broadband in schools continued but direct funding had not been released to schools.

  3. 3.

    India continued to focus funding efforts on infrastructure, but the digital divide remains a perennial challenge.

The exceptions to this are Sri Lanka and Japan. The National Policy for Digital Transformation of EducationFootnote 15 was published in Sri Lanka in 2022 and although an implementation plan has yet to be formulated, funding has been set aside for equipping schools and developing teachers’ digital competence. In Japan, there is evidence of policy continuity or incremental change. Following substantial investment in infrastructure, the focus has switched to education data collection and analytics. A roadmap has been published which outlines how educational data can be utilised, focusing on scope, quality and combination of data and outlining short-, mid- and long-term goalsFootnote 16.

Finally, a lack of policy in relation to emerging technologies and specifically AI was identified in six of the seven countries/jurisdictions. While group members acknowledged the use of generative AI is already widespread, Australia is the only country to have issued non-binding guidance on the use of AI in education (Australian Dept. of Education, 2023).

5 Discussion and Conclusions

It is not surprising digital education and digital education policy was high on the agenda of governments across the world during the Covid-19 pandemic. The sudden switch to emergency remote education resulted in the development or layering of policy with directives and guidelines characterised by substantial funding for infrastructure, devices and connectivity. However, these changes were made very quickly to address the urgent need of continuing schooling and while laudable in the short-term, for the most part were not sustained. Instead, mirroring patterns observed to date, the crisis was followed by policy continuity or incremental change in most countries/jurisdictions (Hogan et al., 2022). For the most part, there has been no meaningful change in digital education post Covid-19. Rather, there has been “a tinkering at the edges” and not a fundamental change in policy whereby digital technologies are used to “reshape teaching methodologies, learning processes, and the educational ecosystem at large, to make it more effective” (OECD, 2023, p.3).

Mahoney and Thelen (2009) warn of policy drift which occurs when existing strategies have a different impact due to changes in the environment. Although the pandemic brought a renewed focus on the use of digital technologies in schools, it also exposed and amplified persistent inequalities and shortcomings of current systems. As documented, learning losses and widening achievement gaps experienced by the most vulnerable sectors of society is a stark legacy of the pandemic. Additionally, concerns about the mental health and well-being of young people as well as teacher burnout, teacher shortage and teacher de-professionalisation are among the new realities or changes to school environments post-Covid-19 which schools are struggling to cope with.

The struggle to meet the demands of the new realities of schooling draws attention to the complexity of the system. Digital technologies are just one part of a complex network of actors and cannot be considered in isolation. The mere introduction of digital technologies will not enable systemic change or resolve inequities and shortcomings (Butler et al., 2018; Selwyn, 2023). In other words, digital policies designed at the Macro level and that focus on just one aspect of the system (e.g. funding hardware) will not address the realities encountered within and across the entire system (Meso level). Long-term change in education requires a clear vision and strategy on how the potential of digital technologies can purposefully and strategically serve the shared purpose of education (Twining et al., 2021). Thus, if policy is to be aligned with the realities of schooling, radical change is required. Policy makers need to acknowledge and understand the realities of schooling and also adopt a coherent approach to policy development. To support radical change, it is crucial that all parts of the system work together (Butler et al., 2018) as policy without coherence will not be effective or have any lasting impact.

Articulating the shared purpose across the macro, meso and micro levels of the system will inform the design, implementation and governance of policy at each level. A clear implementation plan at each level will not only lead to coherence between policy and action but also coherence between macro, meso and micro levels. However, coherent alignment has always been problematic. It is compounded by time lags between the realities encountered on the ground, the fast pace of societal change and the generally slow pace of policy development particularly at national (macro) level. It is also important to acknowledge policy alignment as an ongoing dynamic process (Honig & Hatch, 2004), that entails supporting schools to interpret and implement policy decisions. This requires both infrastructure in schools, ongoing teacher professional learning (Dellagnelo, 2023) and supports for school leadership. As a multidirectional process involving many stakeholders, the need for a coherent process of design and implementation of policies which are in turn monitored and evaluated with strong governance is also crucial. In short, what is needed is robust agile policy characterised by iterative cycles informed by the lived contextual realities of schooling and which mirror the shared purposes of education as determined by all stakeholders. In addition, policy should respect diversity and lead to equality of opportunity and equity, enabling agency and building competence to enact this agency. Only then will digital education policy align with the realities of schooling and transition from tinkering to transformation.