Children showed greater resilience after COVID-19 than first feared, new research finds

New international research has challenged early predictions that the COVID-19 pandemic would cause widespread and lasting harm to children’s learning, behaviour and development.

A special collection published in Child Development brings together 17 longitudinal studies from six countries examining children’s health, learning, social development and wellbeing before, during and after the pandemic.

The findings suggest that although the pandemic affected children in significant and varied ways, the consequences were generally less severe and less enduring than many early assessments predicted. Most children recovered substantially over time, while persistent challenges were more commonly experienced by children already facing financial hardship, limited resources or other disadvantages.

For the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector, the research provides an important reminder that children should not be defined by assumptions of pandemic-related “learning loss”. Instead, educators need to recognise children’s capacity for recovery while remaining responsive to those who continue to need additional support.

Much of the early research into the effects of COVID-19 captured children’s experiences during periods of lockdown, educational disruption and reduced social contact.

Those studies raised legitimate concerns about children’s learning, emotional wellbeing, behaviour and opportunities to develop relationships. However, they could not show whether the difficulties observed during the pandemic would persist once children returned to education, re-established routines and regained access to their communities.

The new collection followed children over longer periods, with some studies drawing on information gathered before the pandemic and continuing to track the same children afterwards.

This longer view revealed a more complex and hopeful picture.

Pandemic-related effects were real, but they were not universal. Many reduced over time, and children’s developmental pathways were influenced by a range of family, educational, social and economic factors, not the pandemic alone.

Gabriela Livas, co-editor of the collection and Professor and Chair of Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin, said the findings provided reason for optimism.

“This means children’s resilience ensured the pandemic’s consequences were not universally catastrophic, and they weren’t uniform either,” Professor Livas said.

She noted that children, including some experiencing vulnerability, responded to the disruption in different ways and were affected by circumstances extending beyond pandemic-related shutdowns.

One study followed children from low-income families in three United States cities, including children who had participated in early childhood programs before the pandemic and were later tracked through elementary school.

Teachers reported that most measures of children’s behaviour remained stable before and after the onset of COVID-19.

Researchers found no increase in attention difficulties or aggression. They did, however, identify a modest decline in prosocial skills such as sharing, cooperation, empathy and understanding other people’s emotions.

Across the broader collection, researchers examined children’s behavioural health, social and emotional development, executive function, language growth, school readiness, biological ageing and academic achievement.

The results varied between groups and developmental measures, reinforcing that there was no single pandemic experience shared by all children.

Although most children demonstrated considerable resilience, the findings should not be interpreted as evidence that every child recovered or that the pandemic caused no lasting harm.

Where difficulties persisted, they were more commonly concentrated among children who were already experiencing disadvantage or limited access to resources.

According to collection co-editor Anna Johnson of Georgetown University, the evidence challenges the idea of universal learning loss and instead suggests that COVID-19 interacted with inequalities that already existed.

This distinction matters for educators, policymakers and service providers.

A broad assumption that all children have been developmentally harmed risks creating a deficit-based view of an entire generation. At the same time, focusing only on children’s resilience could obscure the needs of those still experiencing developmental, behavioural or emotional challenges.

The findings instead support a more targeted response, one that recognises children’s strengths while directing additional assistance towards those who need it.

For children, the research offers a more hopeful account of their capacity to adapt following major disruption.

Children who lived through the pandemic should not automatically be viewed as socially impaired, developmentally behind or permanently affected. Many showed that, when relationships, routines and learning opportunities were restored, they could adjust and recover.

Resilience, however, does not mean children should be expected to overcome difficult experiences without support.

Children’s ability to recover is strengthened by:

• stable and responsive relationships with trusted adults;
• safe, predictable and inclusive environments;
• opportunities to play, communicate and reconnect with peers;
• adults who notice and respond to individual changes;
• access to appropriate developmental, health and family supports; and
• learning environments that recognise capability rather than assuming deficit.

For children experiencing ongoing difficulties, the research supports early and individualised assistance rather than a universal remedial response based solely on their age or pandemic experience.

The modest decline in prosocial skills found in one study also highlights the value of giving children regular opportunities to cooperate, negotiate, share, understand emotions and resolve conflict through play.

The research does not directly conclude that educator–child relationships caused children’s recovery. However, its findings are consistent with the importance of stable relationships and supportive learning environments in helping children adapt.

ECEC services provide children with opportunities to rebuild routines, participate in group experiences, develop friendships and receive support from trusted adults.

Educators can respond to the findings by:

• approaching children from a strengths-based rather than deficit-based perspective;
• avoiding assumptions that every difficulty is a consequence of the pandemic;
• closely observing each child’s learning, behaviour and relationships;
• creating opportunities for collaborative play and social problem-solving;
• supporting children to recognise, express and regulate emotions;
• working with families to understand changes across home and care environments; and
• seeking specialist guidance where concerns are persistent or significant.

The findings also underscore the importance of continuity. Consistent relationships and predictable environments can provide a secure foundation from which children explore, participate and manage change.

The research challenges broad narratives about a universally “lost” or “damaged” generation.

It suggests that responses should focus less on treating all children as being behind and more on identifying which children are experiencing continuing challenges, what those challenges are and what support would make a meaningful difference.

For ECEC policy and practice, this strengthens the case for:

• investing in early identification and targeted intervention;
• improving access to inclusion and developmental supports;
• supporting educator capability in social and emotional development;
• maintaining continuity and stability within the workforce;
• strengthening partnerships between services, families and specialists; and
• addressing the economic and social inequalities that influence children’s developmental opportunities.

The collection comprises 17 separate studies examining different ages, populations and developmental measures. It should not be interpreted as a single global finding that applies equally to every child or national context.

Nor does it establish that the pandemic had no lasting consequences.

Instead, the evidence presents a more nuanced conclusion: children experienced genuine disruption, many demonstrated considerable resilience and recovery, and persistent challenges were more likely to occur where other forms of vulnerability were already present.

For the early childhood sector, the message is not to disregard the effects of the pandemic or assume that every child requires pandemic-related intervention.

It is to recognise children’s strengths, observe their individual needs and ensure support reaches those for whom the effects have continued.

Children may have been more resilient than first feared, but resilience develops within relationships and environments. Ensuring every child has access to those protective conditions remains an important responsibility for educators, families, services and governments.

The research is published in a special collection of Child Development. See the EurekAlert! research summary and the *Child Development* special collection.