Lessons from COVID-19: Scotland’s Educational Response Reimagined, by ChatGPT 4.5 Deep Research using a prompt from Paul Bacsich

Posted on by Paul Bacsich

A Counterfactual Response to COVID-19 School Closures in Scotland (2020–2022): universal online provision at school level

Introduction and Context

When Scottish schools closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, education officials faced an unprecedented challenge: how to ensure continuity of learning for over 700,000 pupils across Scotland​ (en.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia.org).

In reality, Scotland relied on ad-hoc remote teaching solutions (e.g. expanding use of the existing Glow platform and tools like Microsoft Teams) and eventually cancelled or modified national exams.

This counterfactual analysis explores an alternative response. It envisions the Scottish Government rapidly deploying a national Learning Management System (LMS), investing in open educational content, subsidizing computers and internet access for disadvantaged learners, and partnering with the UK Open University for crash teacher training—all in time to support remote schooling through 2020–2022.

The analysis covers the financial implications, international comparisons, approaches to online examinations, LMS options, and implementation feasibility, structured in a policy-analyst-friendly format.

Each section provides evidence, cost estimates, and references to comparable initiatives.

1. Budget Analysis: Baseline and Proposed Expenditures

Baseline Education Budget: Scotland’s annual spending on schools and childcare was approximately £8 billion prior to the pandemic​ (ifs.org.uk). The Scottish Parliament’s 2020–21 Budget allocated about £4.2 billion specifically to Education and Skills (within a £43 billion total public spending plan)​ (parliament.scot). These funds cover teacher salaries, school operations, and existing programs. Any pandemic response requiring new technology and training would thus be additive to an already constrained budget.

Existing COVID-19 Education Funding: During 2020, the Scottish Government did target some emergency funds to digital learning. For instance, £30 million was made available to provide laptops and internet devices to disadvantaged young people​ (cambridgeassessment.org.uk). Earlier in the crisis, the First Minister had announced an initial £9 million fund to equip 25,000 digitally excluded learners with laptops or tablets and mobile data packages​ (inspiringscotland.org.uk, inspiringscotland.org.uk). These stop-gap measures, while helpful, only reached a fraction of the ~700k pupils statewide. They revealed the scale of digital exclusion but fell short of universal coverage.

Proposed Additional Measures and Costs: Under the counterfactual scenario, Scotland would embark on a far more comprehensive program. The major components and rough cost estimates are:

  • National LMS Deployment: Procuring and implementing a cloud-based LMS (such as Canvas or Brightspace) or a national Moodle instance for all schools. Commercial LMS licensing might cost on the order of £5–10 per student annually at scale. For ~700k students (plus ~50k teachers), a two-year national license could cost roughly £5–7 million per year, i.e. £10–14 million over 2020–2022. This aligns with known enterprise pricing; for example, Ontario’s Ministry of Education provides D2L Brightspace to all public schools at no cost to local districts​ (d2l.com, d2l.com), implying a central contract likely in the low tens of millions (CAD) range. An open-source Moodle solution could reduce licensing fees but would still require significant hosting infrastructure and support (perhaps £5 million upfront for servers, development and training, plus ongoing maintenance).
  • Open Content Development: Creating or curating high-quality digital lessons and open educational resources (OER) aligned to Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence. A useful benchmark is England’s Oak National Academy, which was granted £4.3 million in mid-2020 to produce a full year’s worth of online lessons as a contingency for continued school closures​ (en.wikipedia.org). Scotland could invest similarly (say £4–5 million) to commission teachers (perhaps via Education Scotland or the Open University) to rapidly expand online content libraries in core subjects. This content investment would complement the LMS by populating it with ready-to-use lessons, assignments, and quizzes.
  • Device and Internet Subsidies: Bridging the digital divide by providing laptops/tablets and broadband access to every pupil who lacks them. If we assume around 20% of pupils had inadequate access (based on UK surveys of device scarcity in state schools​ (cambridgeassessment.org.uk, cambridgeassessment.org.uk), that’s roughly 140,000 students in Scotland. At an estimated cost of £300 per learner for a basic Chromebook or tablet plus subsidized internet (similar to Scotland’s initial £9m for 25k students​ (inspiringscotland.org.uk), the outlay would be on the order of £42 million to reach 140k pupils. In practice, a phased approach might be taken: e.g. £20–25 million in 2020 (building on the existing £30m​ (cambridgeassessment.org.uk) to prioritize the most disadvantaged, and another £20 million in 2021 to approach universal coverage. This aligns with international spending – for example, the state of Mississippi (USA) approved $150 million (~£110m) just for computing devices, software, and teacher training as part of a $200m pandemic education package (edsurge.com).

  • Crash Teacher Training (OU Program): Up-skilling thousands of teachers in online pedagogy and LMS usage via the UK Open University (a specialist in distance learning). Such a program could be delivered as short online courses or micro-credentials over summer 2020 and ongoing support through 2021. The cost would include course development and paying tutors/facilitators. If 50,000 teachers and support staff each underwent training at a cost of, say, £100 per head, that totals £5 million. Even if more intensive, it’s likely on the order of single-digit millions (for reference, Mississippi’s plan earmarked part of its $150m for teacher professional development alongside devices​ (edsurge.com). The OU could leverage its existing expertise to keep costs efficient, possibly adapting content from its free OpenLearn platform or the EU’s School Education Gateway courses.

  • Online Exam Infrastructure: (Detailed in Section 3) Implementing online national exams for 2021–2022 would require secure assessment platforms and support. We estimate about £1–3 million to license and run an exam platform (like Inspera or WISEflow) for the Higher and Advanced Higher exams each year, including remote proctoring features. For instance, Inspera’s licensing bands suggest an annual fee under €1 million (~£0.85m) for 100k student users​ (f.hubspotusercontent10.net, f.hubspotusercontent10.net), plus ~30% extra for remote proctoring functionality (f.hubspotusercontent10.net, f.hubspotusercontent10.net).

Aggregate Budget Impact: Summing these components, Scotland’s additional expenditure for 2020–2022 might be on the order of £80–100 million. This includes roughly £10–15m for the LMS, £5m for content, £40–50m for devices/connectivity, £5m for teacher training, and £5m for exams and other supports. In percentage terms, that is about 1–1.5% of the normal annual education spend (given ~£8b on schools​ (ifs.org.uk). While significant, these investments could be seen as part of the pandemic emergency response, potentially financed through reallocated funds or UK COVID relief packages. (Indeed, the Scottish Government spent £14.5 billion on pandemic measures across sectors​, emphasizing professional development – a model Scotland could emulate via Open University crash courses (audit.scot), so £100m for education resilience is proportionate.) The returns would be a more robust remote learning capability and mitigation of learning loss, especially for disadvantaged groups.

2. International Comparisons: Learning from Peers

Countries and regions with similar economic resources to Scotland undertook a variety of measures to support remote learning. Scotland could have drawn on these examples of best practice:

  • Nordic Nations: The high-income Nordic countries rapidly mobilized their strong digital infrastructure. Finland launched Koulu.me, a free national digital school platform, in March 2020 with government and edtech industry support​ (computerweekly.com). This open innovation project offered free apps and resources to facilitate distance learning. Norway and Denmark also closed all schools early in the pandemic​ (computerweekly.com) and leveraged existing e-learning tools. Notably, Norway’s Directorate for Education (UDIR) had already been using a digital assessment platform (Inspera) for years, delivering over 5 million online high-stakes tests since 2008​ (inspera.com, inspera.com). This meant Norway had experience with at-scale digital testing and could, in theory, extend it to upper secondary exams. Sweden was an outlier in keeping primary schools open in 2020 (computerweekly.com), but even there, universities moved online and companies like Sectra provided cloud-based education portals for continuity​ (computerweekly.com). Across the Nordics, strong collaboration between education authorities and tech providers was evident. For example, education unions in Nordic countries partnered with governments to address teachers’ needs in transitioning to remote teaching​ (ei-ie.org).
  • Estonia: Though smaller and slightly lower GDP per capita, Estonia is often cited as a digital exemplar. When its schools closed on March 16, 2020, every student continued learning online, primarily via the nationally-developed eKool platform​ (news.err.ee). Estonia’s pre-existing culture of e-education (100% of schools using e-scsolutions​ (prnewswire.com) meant little instructional time was lost. Impressively, Estonia even offered its digital education tools (like eKool and others) for free to other countries during the crisis​ (news.err.ee, news.err.ee), demonstrating how robust their systems were. Scotland, with a comparable population size and strong IT sector, could have similarly leaned into digital solutions; indeed, Scotland’s Glow platform was conceptually similar to eKool, though Glow’s functionality in 2020 was limited (largely a SharePoint-based intranet with Microsoft Office 365 integration) and may not have been as user-friendly or comprehensive as a dedicated LMS.

  • United States (Wealthy States): Education responses in the U.S. varied by state and district. Some states with resources comparable to Scotland’s took ambitious steps to close the digital divide. For instance, Mississippi (albeit a lower-income state, but illustrative in scale) quickly assembled a $200 million program called Mississippi Connects in mid-2020​ (edsurge.com, edsurge.com). This included $150M for purchasing computing devices, software licenses (including LMS where needed), and teacher professional development​ (edsurge.com, edsurge.com). By surveying districts, Mississippi ensured that every school system could refresh or procure enough laptops for all students and even teachers​ (edsurge.com, edsurge.com). Other states used federal relief funds to expand connectivity: Ohio, for example, allocated $50 million to provide hotspots and internet-enabled devices to students from low-income homes​(pewtrusts.org). California and New York – with larger budgets – distributed hundreds of thousands of devices (e.g., New York City alone gave out ~300,000 iPads in 2020). The United States’ federal CARES Act also allowed 12 states to dedicate emergency funding specifically for K-12 online learning needs​ (pewtrusts.org), recognizing that 15–16 million US students lacked adequate internet or devices at home​ (pewtrusts.org). Scotland, as part of the UK, similarly received Barnett formula consequentials for COVID spending; directing a bigger share of that toward a one-off technology blitz was a feasible choice (England’s Department for Education spent over £85m on devices for disadvantaged pupils​ (inspiringscotland.org.uk, cambridgeassessment.org.uk), which Scotland scaled down to £30m – the counterfactual scenario posits scaling it up instead).

  • Australia (States/Provinces): Australian states, which have GNP per capita levels comparable to Scotland, largely leveraged existing e-learning frameworks but also made emergency provisions. In Victoria (pop. ~6.7 million), the state government distributed approximately 91,000 laptops or tablets to students who needed them, and provided 28,000 mobile data dongles to get households online for remote learning​ (vic.gov.au). These devices were permanently retained by families, indicating a strategic investment in long-term digital inclusion​ (vic.gov.au). Victoria’s Education Department noted this was “extremely important support” for vulnerable students during lockdowns​ (education.vic.gov.au). Other states like New South Wales similarly loaned or gave devices and subsidized internet for tens of thousands of students. The Australian experience also highlighted the value of centralized LMS: many Australian schools already used platforms like Google Classroom or local Moodle-based solutions, and the quick shift “almost overnight” to fully online delivery was aided by these tools​ (vuir.vu.edu.au). A post-pandemic review in Australia suggests schools are now intent on “build[ing] upon 2020’s digital learning lessons”​ (theeducatoronline.com), something Scotland could have proactively done in 2020 by investing in system-wide infrastructure.

In summary, peer nations and regions that coped effectively with school closures tended to have robust national or state-wide platforms, dedicated funding for devices/connectivity, and an emphasis on teacher preparedness. Scotland’s economic capacity is on par with many of these examples (e.g. Finland, a Nordic welfare state, or Victoria, a wealthy Australian state). The international comparisons underscore that the proposed measures—while ambitious—were within the realm of possibility given sufficient political will and budget prioritization. They also offer concrete models (Finland’s open content, Ontario’s LMS, Mississippi’s device program, Estonia’s digital culture) that validate each component of the counterfactual strategy.

3. Online National Exams: Methodology and Costing for Remote Scottish Highers

One of the most disruptive impacts of the pandemic was the cancellation of the 2020 Scottish National 5, Higher, and Advanced Higher exams, and the continued alterations in 2021. In our counterfactual scenario, Scotland opts to proceed with online national examinations in 2021 and 2022, using secure digital assessment platforms. This would allow students to sit for Scottish Highers remotely, preserving the integrity of qualifications while avoiding the public backlash that accompanied teacher-estimated grades.

Platform Selection: The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) could have contracted a proven e-assessment platform such as Inspera (a Norwegian-based system) or WISEflow (by Danish firm UNIwise). Both are used internationally for high-stakes exams. Notably, Inspera has delivered millions of online tests for Norway’s national education authorities ​(inspera.com), and it supports full exam cycles from question design to marking​ (inspera.com, inspera.com). These platforms offer features crucial for exam security: lockdown browsers (to prevent accessing other resources during the test), authenticated logins, timed submissions, and integration of rich question types (for math equations, essays, etc.). In a remote setting, they can be augmented with online proctoring: for example, Inspera’s Remote Exam add-on uses AI for identity verification and suspicious behavior detection via webcam, with recorded sessions for review​ (f.hubspotusercontent10.net). Such systems flag anomalies (like someone leaving the screen or using a phone) for human invigilators to investigate.

Methodology: The execution of online Highers would involve several steps:

  1. Pilot Phase (late 2020): The SQA would conduct pilot e-assessments with volunteer schools or for lower-stakes prelims to test the system’s scalability and identify issues (e.g., ensuring students could install the secure browser, checking compatibility with school-issued devices).
  2. Student/School Preparation: All candidates would need a suitable device (which ties into the device distribution program) and internet access on exam days. Detailed guidance would be issued on technical requirements. A helpline or technical support team would be established to troubleshoot login issues. Schools could still optionally serve as controlled environments for students lacking a quiet space or robust internet at home (with proper distancing if needed).
  3. Scheduling and Load Management: Exams might be scheduled slightly differently to manage server load. For instance, subjects could be staggered by region or held within broad windows (morning/afternoon) rather than all at once. The platform vendor would provide service level agreements ensuring uptime of ~99.9% during exam periods​ (f.hubspotusercontent10.net, f.hubspotusercontent10.net) and “exam-day priority support” with rapid response in case of technical glitches (Inspera offers a premium SLA for critical exam support​ (f.hubspotusercontent10.net).
  4. Identity Verification and Proctoring: Students would log in via a secure link, possibly confirming identity by showing ID to their webcam or using the platform’s built-in verification. During the exam, their camera and microphone could record the session (with privacy safeguards in place) – Inspera’s proctoring, for example, records video/audio and alerts live invigilators to any suspicious activity in real time (f.hubspotusercontent10.net).The system locks down the device, preventing opening of other apps or websites. (In some cases, if a student’s connection drops, the software can pause and then resume when reconnected, to handle instability.)
  5. Submission and Marking: Responses would be encrypted and uploaded. Markers (teachers or SQA examiners) could then mark scripts online through the platform’s grading interface. This can actually streamline the marking process (no physical paper scripts to transport). Additionally, the SQA’s moderation processes could be built in, with senior examiners sampling scripts or reviewing flagged cases (like potential misconduct or unusual answer patterns).

Costs: Procuring a commercial exam system for potentially tens of thousands of simultaneous users is a specialized expense, but manageable. Inspera’s pricing model, for instance, is based on number of student users. In one pricing sheet, a 50,000-user annual license is listed at €370,000 (about £330k)​ (f.hubspotusercontent10.net). Scaling to Scotland’s needs (let’s assume 100,000 exam candidates across Highers and National 5s) might double that base cost to around £600–£700k per year. Remote proctoring adds roughly 30% on top of the base license (f.hubspotusercontent10.net), bringing it to perhaps £1 million. Additional one-time costs would include integration with SQA databases (to import candidate lists, etc.) and training administrators – say another £500k for setup services and contingency. Thus, a ballpark figure is £1.5 million for the first year, and somewhat less (£1m) for the second if much of the setup was reusable. These figures are in line with what some universities paid for remote exam solutions in 2020. By comparison, the cost of cancelling exams was not just educational but financial – in England, the exam boards lost significant revenue and had to develop alternate assessments; investing a couple of million to avoid that disruption in Scotland would be justified.

Feasibility and Fairness: The biggest concern with online exams is maintaining fairness and credibility. Some international precedents by 2021 showed it can be done. For example, Norwegian universities successfully held thousands of online proctored exams in 2020 using Inspera, and the Norwegian government had confidence in digital exams due to years of national tests online​ (inspera.com). In the U.S., Advanced Placement (AP) exams (college entrance tests) were conducted online(open-book) for over 500,000 students in spring 2020, albeit with some technical hiccups. Those experiences highlight the importance of robust technical support and backup plans (e.g., a contingency window for any student who has a technical failure during the scheduled exam).

Scotland could mitigate issues by, for instance, allowing a reserve exam day for any student who experiences a verified technical outage on the main day. Additionally, ensuring the exam format is somewhat forgiving of the online medium (e.g., perhaps more multiple-choice or typed responses, and careful consideration for subjects like math or art that are trickier online) would be key. Ultimately, while not trivial, conducting Scottish Highers online was technically and logistically feasible with sufficient lead time and investment, and the cost of the platform would be a modest portion of the education budget. The payoff would be continuity of assessment and avoiding grade inflation or public contention around teacher estimates.

4. LMS Selection: Canvas vs. Brightspace vs. Moodle for a National Platform

At the heart of the proposed strategy is a national Learning Management System (LMS) to unify remote teaching and learning. We consider three plausible options: Instructure’s Canvas, D2L’s Brightspace, and an open-source Moodle instance for all Scottish schools. Each has pros and cons in cost, features, and technical feasibility.

Canvas (Instructure): Canvas is a popular cloud-based LMS known for its intuitive interface and widespread use in higher education and some K-12 districts worldwide. Its advantages include a modern user experience, robust mobile apps, and a large ecosystem of integrations (for video conferencing, plagiarism checking, etc.). Canvas could be deployed as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), meaning Instructure hosts and manages it, which would expedite rollout (crucial in a pandemic). In early 2020, Instructure offered free LMS access to schools in certain regions to assist with emergency remote learning, though a national adoption would require a formal contract. Cost-wise, Canvas is typically licensed per user per year. For large clients, the rate can be a few dollars per student. If we estimate $5 (≈£4) per student annually for ~750,000 users, that’s £3 million/year. Instructure might offer volume discounts or a flat enterprise rate; a multi-year deal might push the cost toward the higher end of our earlier estimate (£5m/year) depending on included support. One challenge is data hosting and privacy – the contract would need to ensure student data is stored in compliance with UK GDPR (Instructure has EU data centers). Technically, Canvas is proven at scale (used by state-wide systems and large universities), so handling Scotland’s user base is feasible.

Brightspace (D2L): Brightspace is another leading LMS, with a strong presence in K-12. Notably, Ontario’s Ministry of Education provides Brightspace to all public schools as the core of its Virtual Learning Environment​ (d2l.com, d2l.com). This shows Brightspace can serve millions of students under a central implementation. Brightspace is praised for its robust assessment tools and analytics, which could be useful for tracking engagement and learning progress during remote learning. The cost model is similar to Canvas – typically per user licensing. Given Ontario’s example (providing it “at no cost to boards” via a provincial contract​ (d2l.com), one could infer the Ontario government is paying a significant sum annually to D2L (perhaps on the order of C$10–15 million, which is roughly £6–9m, given Ontario has about 2 million K-12 students). For Scotland’s smaller scale, we might expect £2–4 million/year licensing if negotiated well. Brightspace could be hosted on D2L’s cloud (they have EU-based hosting as well). Implementing Brightspace nationally would require integration with Scotland’s school identity management (so that each teacher/student can log in with their existing credentials, possibly via the Glow login system). Both Canvas and Brightspace would offer dedicated support teams to help a quick rollout, especially under emergency circumstances.

Moodle (Open-Source): Moodle is a free, open-source LMS used by many schools and universities globally. Scotland could opt to build a nationwide Moodle instance (or a network of instances per region) to avoid recurring license fees to vendors. The Scottish education authority could either self-host Moodle on government servers or use a third-party Moodle partner for managed hosting. The upfront tasks would include provisioning servers (Moodle can be scaled via cloud infrastructure on AWS/Azure, etc.), configuring the system for Scottish schools, and theming it appropriately. Moodle’s strengths are its cost-effectiveness (no license fee, just infrastructure and support costs) and its flexibility – it supports a wide range of plugins, including integrations with Open University’s content or Google/Microsoft tools. However, Moodle might have a steeper learning curve for teachers, and its interface is sometimes considered less modern out-of-the-box compared to Canvas/Brightspace. Also, a single national Moodle site for 700k users is a large undertaking; careful load testing and possibly a distributed architecture (multiple servers behind load balancers) would be required. There are precedents for large-scale Moodle: for example, the French-speaking community of Belgium ran a regional Moodle for thousands of students, and the UK’s Open University itself uses a customized Moodle for its hundreds of thousands of learners.

Cost Comparison: While Moodle avoids license fees, it’s not “free” at this scale. We would estimate the cost for a national Moodle in Scotland as follows: initial setup (technical development, customization, cloud server setup, security hardening) – £1–2 million; annual hosting and support – £1 million (for cloud server bills and a small team of developers to maintain updates). There is also the option of outsourcing to a Moodle service provider (like MoodleCloud or a third-party firm) which might charge per user but usually less than proprietary LMS costs. For example, a Moodle host might charge on the order of £1–2 per user annually given very large numbers, implying ~£1m/year. This is cheaper than Canvas or Brightspace, but the trade-off is that the government itself bears more responsibility for ensuring everything works smoothly (whereas with a commercial LMS, much of that responsibility is on the vendor).

Feature and Feasibility Comparison: All three options can deliver core LMS functionality: course pages, assignments, quizzes, discussion forums, file distribution, and integration with video conferencing (Zoom/Teams). Canvas and Brightspace likely have an edge in polished user experience and integrated mobile notifications. Moodle’s advantage is adaptability – for instance, if open content is a priority, Moodle could integrate well with OER repositories or even directly pull materials from Open University’s systems. In terms of speed of deployment, Canvas/Brightspace as cloud solutions could be rolled out in weeks if contracts are in place; Moodle might take a bit longer to set up and fine-tune. However, given that Scotland already had the Glow platform (with user directories and single sign-on for Office 365), any LMS could potentially be tied into Glow’s authentication. The government could choose a hybrid approach: e.g., use Microsoft Teams (already part of Glow) for live classes, but a new LMS for structured content and tracking. Indeed, many schools in 2020 simply used Teams or Google Classroom as a de facto LMS. The counterfactual argument for a dedicated LMS is that it offers a consistent nationwide structure and richer pedagogical tools than basic file-sharing or video calls.

Recommendation: In a rapid deployment scenario, Brightspace might have been an attractive choice given its K-12 focus and a successful reference model in Ontario. It balances quick implementation with scalability and an existing training ecosystem for teachers. Canvas would also be a strong contender, perhaps preferred if the Scottish Government valued open standards (Canvas has good support for Learning Tools Interoperability, etc.) and a modern UI. Moodle could work if cost was the driving factor and if the government was willing to invest in technical capacity – plus it aligns with the philosophy of “open content” by using open-source software. Ultimately, any of these LMS options, if launched by summer 2020, would have provided a backbone for remote learning, giving teachers a common platform to post lessons, give quizzes, collect homework, and monitor student progress. The key is that a decision and procurement would need to happen quickly (within weeks of the school closures) to be ready for the new school year in August/September 2020.

5. Implementation Feasibility: Timeline, Logistics, and Policy Challenges

Implementing this multifaceted strategy in real time during 2020 would have been challenging, but not impossible. Below we outline a plausible timeline and address the logistical and policy hurdles Scotland would have faced:

  • March–April 2020: Rapid Planning and Procurement – With schools closed from late March, the government would have a brief window to plan. An emergency task force (involving Education Scotland, SQA, local authorities, and digital experts) could be established to drive the project. Immediate steps by April: allocate emergency budget (e.g., repurpose some funds from underspends or UK COVID funding), begin procurement for the LMS and exam platform (leveraging emergency procurement rules to fast-track vendor selection), and engage the Open University to design teacher training modules. A policy decision to pursue online exams in 2021 would need to be signaled early so that SQA and schools could prepare.
  • May–June 2020: Deployment of Infrastructure & Content Creation – By May, an LMS vendor could be contracted. The vendor would spin up the Scottish LMS environment in their cloud. In parallel, Education Scotland would coordinate teams of teachers (possibly on special secondment) to create digital lesson content and assemble OER packages for core subjects. This is also when device procurement should happen: bulk orders for tens of thousands of laptops and 4G routers/dongles. Logistics here involve coordinating with manufacturers or major IT suppliers (which, in mid-2020, was feasible if done early; delays only worsened later when global demand spiked). The Scottish Government might also partner with telecom companies to get discounted data SIM cards (similar to some UK arrangements where mobile providers zero-rated educational websites or provided free data for students).
  • Summer 2020: Training and Testing – The summer break (July–August) is crucial. The Open University could roll out an online “Introduction to Remote Teaching” course, which teachers would be strongly encouraged (or even mandated) to complete. This could be a short course (10-15 hours) focusing on using the LMS, delivering live lessons, and digital pedagogy 101. It could be made available in early July, giving teachers flexibility to complete it over the holiday (possibly with a stipend or professional development credit to incentivize participation). Meanwhile, the LMS should be pilot-tested: a handful of schools might run virtual summer classes or test courses to ensure the system works and to generate best-practice examples. Distribution of devices to families should occur in August so that by the start of the new term, all students who need a device have one. This entails coordinating with headteachers to identify the pupils in need (leveraging data like free school meal eligibility as a proxy for likely need, as was done in actual schemes (cambridgeassessment.org.uk).
  • August 2020: Launch at Scale – The new school year would begin with the LMS in place. Every teacher would have access to the LMS and initial training. There would likely be hiccups: some teachers less confident, some families struggling with the tech. To address this, the plan would include an ongoing support system: helpdesks for technical support (possibly an expanded Glow helpdesk), a cadre of “digital lead” teachers in each local authority to mentor colleagues, and continuous collaboration with telecom providers to solve connectivity issues. The policy here needs to be adaptive – e.g., allowing a hybrid of in-person and online as health conditions permit, and ensuring any child who still cannot get online (worst-case scenarios) is not left behind (e.g., provide printed packets as backup, or safe spaces in school buildings to use computers with supervision).
  • Late 2020 – Early 2021: Monitoring and Adjustment – Through the autumn, the government would monitor engagement statistics via the LMS (which can show login rates, assignment completion rates, etc.). If certain schools or regions show low uptake, targeted interventions (additional training or resources) could be applied. By winter 2020/21, contingency plans for exams should be finalized: a decision to formally commit to online Highers in spring 2021 would be taken by late 2020 to give students clarity. Mock exams or formative assessments could be conducted online in Jan/Feb 2021 to build familiarity. On the policy side, the government might need to adjust regulations – for instance, ensuring that digital exams are explicitly allowed under SQA rules, and addressing any union concerns. Teacher unions might worry about workload or privacy; early involvement of unions in planning and clear communication that these measures are to support teachers (not replace them or surveil them) would be vital. In Nordic countries, union collaboration was key to pandemic response​ (ei-ie.org), so Scotland could mirror that approach.
  • 2021: Continuous Improvement and 2022 Outlook – If the pandemic continued (as it did) into 2021, Scotland would be in a strong position: the LMS and devices in place, teachers more experienced, and online exams proven in 2021. For spring 2022, adjustments based on the 2021 exam experience could be implemented (for example, improving proctoring techniques or exam timing). Policy-makers would also need to plan for the post-pandemic integration of these tools. A challenge might be sustaining funding – the laptops given out will eventually need replacement or maintenance, the LMS license might come up for renewal, etc. However, by demonstrating the value during the crisis (perhaps even improved digital skills and some pedagogical gains), the education system could justify making these innovations permanent. Scotland could emerge as a leader in blended learning, with the LMS supporting regular teaching (not just emergency remote learning) and the open content serving to enrich classroom practice.

Logistical Challenges: Several practical issues would need careful management:

  • Supply Chain: Securing tens of thousands of devices quickly in 2020 was competitive (many governments were ordering simultaneously). Early action and possibly willing to use multiple suppliers (e.g., a mix of Chromebooks, Windows laptops, iPads as available) would be needed. Also, setting up those devices (installing necessary software, LMS shortcuts, security settings) is non-trivial – could engage outsourced IT contractors or Scotland’s Education IT agency.
  • Connectivity in Rural Areas: Scotland has rural highlands and islands where broadband is weak. The plan would rely on cellular (4G/5G) solutions in many cases. The government’s existing Connecting Scotland program, which initially targeted vulnerable groups with devices and Mi-Fi units, would have to scale up (inspiringscotland.org.uk). Perhaps temporary expansion of community Wi-Fi (e.g., parking a Wi-Fi enabled bus in a village) or creative use of TV broadcast for lessons could supplement purely online approaches for the hardest-to-reach areas.
  • Accessibility and Inclusion: Ensuring the LMS and content are accessible to students with disabilities (e.g., compatibility with screen readers for visually impaired students) is a requirement. The selected LMS should comply with accessibility standards – for instance, Ontario’s Brightspace implementation was part of a broader digital accessibility initiative​ (vic.gov.au, vic.gov.au). Materials might need to be available in multiple languages (for EAL learners) and formats. The Open University and Education Scotland could advise on inclusive design for both the platform and content.
  • Data Security and Privacy: Hosting student data, exam data, and possibly video recordings of exam sessions raises data protection issues. The Scottish Government would need to ensure contracts have strict data ownership clauses, and likely inform families about how data is used. This is surmountable (many countries do it), but transparency is key to maintaining trust.

Policy Hurdles: Beyond logistics, some policy and political challenges include:

  • Public Trust in Online Learning: In 2020, shifting to fully online education was novel. The government would need a communications campaign to explain the benefits and safety nets of the new approach, to get buy-in from parents and students. Highlighting international successes (as we have in this analysis) could bolster the case.
  • Examination Standards: Moving Highers online would surely invite scrutiny. SQA and ministers would have to reassure universities and employers that an online Higher is of equivalent rigor. They might even involve external observers (perhaps from OECD or other educational bodies) to validate the online exam process.
  • Equity Concerns: While the very aim of device distribution is to increase equity, there might be concerns that not all home environments are conducive to learning or testing (even with a laptop, a student in a chaotic home will struggle). The policy response would be to allow accommodations – e.g., keep some supervised study centers open for those who need a quiet space, even during lockdown (with health measures). The government could coordinate with community organizations to identify and support such cases. Failure to address this would undermine the equity goal, so it must be explicit in planning.
  • Teacher Workload and Morale: Teachers would be asked to adapt rapidly to new tools. To make this feasible, the strategy would include reducing other burdens: perhaps pausing some non-critical curriculum requirements, providing additional assistant support for online classes, or adjusting expectations (initially focusing on core subjects or essential outcomes). The crash training with OU would help, but support must continue as teachers practice in real time. The government could also create peer support mechanisms (like online forums moderated by experienced digital teachers) so that problems and tips are shared community-wide.

In conclusion, implementing this nationwide e-learning pivot in Scotland from 2020–2022 was a complex but achievable mission. The timelines show that by leveraging the summer break and emergency funding, the major pieces (LMS, devices, training, exam platform) could fall into place within 5–6 months. International peers managed similar feats: e.g., Finland stood up a new platform in mere weeks​ (computerweekly.com), Mississippi passed a $200m plan within three months​ (edsurge.com), and Estonia had everyone online immediately​ (news.err.ee). Scotland would have encountered obstacles, but with decisive action, many negatives of the pandemic (like the 2020 exams fiasco or widened attainment gaps) might have been mitigated.

Conclusion

This counterfactual analysis illustrates that Scotland could have responded to COVID-19 school closures with a bold digital strategy – one combining infrastructure, content, access, and training. Starting from an annual education budget of ~£8bn​ (ifs.org.uk), an extra investment under £100m spread over two years might have achieved: a national LMS for all learners, comprehensive open educational resources, every student online with a device, a teaching workforce equipped for digital instruction, and continuity of national assessments via online exams. International comparisons show that many elements of this strategy were not only plausible but were implemented elsewhere in some form. The key was swift, coordinated action and prioritizing equity in access.

By examining this scenario, policy analysts can glean lessons for future crises and for the ongoing digital transformation of education. A centrally supported e-learning ecosystem can enhance resilience—ensuring that learning never has to stop, even when schools close. Scotland’s experience in the pandemic underscores the importance of preparation and the value of learning from others’ successes. Had Scotland rapidly deployed a national LMS, embraced open content, subsidized connectivity, and upskilled teachers en masse in 2020, the educational disruption of COVID-19 might have been significantly softened, benefiting thousands of learners when they needed it most.

Sources

Prompts

You said:

Write a 3000-word counterfactual essay on how Scotland coped with the closure of schools during the Covid pandemic 2020-2022 by rapid deployment of a national LMS, expanded use of open content and subsidised PCs, internet access to disadvantaged learners and a crash programme by the UK Open University to train all teachers how to teach online. Make sure to include a budget for what this exercise would have costed, based on national data for the schools system. Provide references for how some other countries or regions managed to do one or more of the various components of the approach. Include a costed method by which national exams (Scottish Highers) were run online in summer 2021 and 2022.

ChatGPT said:

To ensure the counterfactual essay is as detailed and accurate as possible, could you clarify the following:

  1. Budget Estimates: Do you prefer estimates based on actual Scottish government spending in education during the pandemic, or should I use comparable international benchmarks where Scottish data is unavailable?
  2. References: Would you like references to countries with similar education structures to Scotland (e.g., Nordic countries) or a broader global comparison?
  3. Exam Administration: Should the online Scottish Highers exams use existing systems (e.g., adapted university e-assessment platforms) or a hypothetical bespoke system?
  4. Target Audience: Should this be written in an academic style, a policy recommendation format, or a general informative tone?
  5. Any specific LMS preference? Should the counterfactual assume an open-source platform like Moodle, a commercial system, or a custom-built Scottish platform?

Let me know, and I’ll get started!

You said:

1. Use actual Scottish education budget as a start but add additional expenditure as needed.

2. References should be to countries (or US states, Australian provinces etc) with similar GNP/capita to Scotland such as Nordic countries.

3. The Exam system should be off-the-shelf commercial system such as Inspera or Wiseflow used in some universities already.

4. Target audience is policy analysts.

5. LMS should be a cloud-based commercial one in particular Canvas or Brightspace, but costs and technical feasibility for a Scotland-wide schools Moodle instance should be considered. There is no time for custom-build platforms, since time to implementation is crucial.

ChatGPT said:

Thanks for the detailed clarification. I will analyze how Scotland could have managed school closures during the Covid-19 pandemic by rapidly deploying a national LMS, expanding open content use, subsidizing PCs and internet for disadvantaged learners, and launching a crash training program for teachers through the UK Open University.

The research will include:

  • A budget estimate based on Scotland’s actual education expenditure, adjusted for additional costs.
  • Case studies from comparable countries (e.g., Nordic countries, US states, Australian provinces) that implemented similar measures.
  • A costed method for running online Scottish Highers in 2021 and 2022 using commercial platforms like Inspera or Wiseflow.
  • A comparison of Canvas, Brightspace, and Moodle as potential national LMS options, including costs and feasibility.

I will provide a well-structured counterfactual essay targeted at policy analysts, including references and cost estimates. I will update you once the research is complete.

Research completed in 5m · 26 sources [generated on 13 March 2025]

Leave a comment