Table 3: Impact of the school shutdowns on students’ learning, fifth-grade (2007-2009)

|||||**M**|**Estimated **<br>**ath**|**decrease in**|**Math and **|**Portuguese**|**Profcien**|**cy, SAEB **|**scale**|**P**|**ortuguese**||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||DiD|DiD|DiD|TD|TD|TD|TD|TD|DiD|DiD|DiD|TD|TD|TD|TD|TD|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|(7)|(8)|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|(7)|(8)|
|H1N1|-3.26**|-3.27**|-2.75**|-4.35***|-4.25***|-4.38***|-4.29***|-4.25***|-0.76|-0.78|-0.54|-3.49***|-3.40***|-3.51***|-4.29***|-2.73***|
|sd|(1.18)|(1.22)|(1.23)|(0.96)|(0.97)|(0.96)|(0.97)|(1.06)|(0.86)|(0.91)|(0.95)|(0.81)|(0.81)|(0.81)|(0.97)|(0.90)|
|Wild-bootstrap p-value|0.0400|0.0260|0.0410|0.0000|0.0000|0.0000|0.0000|0.0001|0.3920|0.4150|0.6060|0.0000|0.0000|0.0000|0.0000|0.0025|
|95% CI|[-5.6,-0.9]|[-5.7,-0.9]|[-5.2,-0.3]|[-6.2,-2.5]|[-6.1,-2.4]|[-6.3,-2.5]|[-6.2,-2.4]|[-6.3,-2.2]|[-2.5,0.9]|[-2.6,1.0]|[-2.4,1.3]|[-5.1,-1.9]|[-5.0,-1.8]|[-5.1,-1.9]|[-6.2,-2.4]|[-4.5,-1.0]|
|N. schools|3912|3912|3912|5329|5329|5329|5329|5329|3912|3912|3912|5329|5329|5329|5329|5329|
|Adj. R2|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.7|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.6|
|_Profciency - Treatment _|_Group before_|_the school s_|_hutdowns (_|_2007)_|||||||||||||
|Mean|193.38|193.38|193.38|195.3|195.3|195.3|195.3|195.3|175.44|175.44|175.44|177.88|177.88|177.88|195.3|177.88|
|Sd|15.44|15.44|15.44|16.09|16.09|16.09|16.09|16.09|15.4|15.4|15.4|15.46|15.46|15.46|16.09|15.46|
|ATT est (in sd)|-0.21|-0.21|-0.18|-0.27|-0.26|-0.27|-0.27|-0.26|-0.05|-0.05|-0.03|-0.23|-0.22|-0.23|-0.27|-0.18|
|**Estimated increase in **|**the perce**|**ntage of stu**|**dents belo**|**w the basic **<br>**M**|**level of lea**<br>**ath**|**rning in M**|**ath and Por**|**tuguese, in**|**%**|||**P**|**ortuguese**||||
||DiD|DiD|DiD|TD|TD|TD|TD|TD|DiD|DiD|DiD|TD|TD|TD|TD|TD|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|(7)|(8)|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|(7)|(8)|
|H1N1|2.59**|2.61**|2.20**|4.63***|4.59***|4.66***|4.62***|4.89***|1.19|1.2|0.97|3.12***|3.08***|3.13***|3.09***|2.62***|
|sd|(0.91)|(0.94)|(0.95)|(0.86)|(0.87)|(0.86)|(0.87)|(0.97)|(0.86)|(0.88)|(0.89)|(0.74)|(0.74)|(0.74)|(0.74)|(0.89)|
|Wild-bootstrap p-value|0.0310|0.0210|0.0340|0.0000|0.0000|0.0000|0.0000|0.0000|0.2170|0.2160|0.3140|0.0000|0.0000|0.0000|0.0000|0.0034|
|N. schools|3914|3914|3914|5330|5330|5330|5330|5330|3914|3914|3914|5330|5330|5330|5330|5330|
|Adj. R2|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.7|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.8|0.5|
|_Percentage of students be_|_low the basi_|_c level of pro_|_fciency - T_|_reatment Gro_|_up before the_|_school shutd_|_owns (2007)_||||||||||
|Mean|57.49|57.49|57.49|56.36|56.36|56.36|56.36|56.36|70.74|70.74|70.74|69.62|69.62|69.62|69.62|69.62|
|Increase, in %|5.12|5.17|4.36|8.78|8.69|8.83|8.76|9.26|1.82|1.82|1.47|4.67|4.6|4.69|4.62|3.92|
|(A) Municipal FE|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|
|(B) Controls|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|
|(C) % teachers|No|Yes|Yes|No|Yes|No|Yes|Yes|No|Yes|Yes|No|Yes|No|Yes|Yes|
|in both networks|||||||||||||||||
|(D) % teachers|No|No|Yes|No|No|Yes|Yes|Yes|No|No|Yes|No|No|Yes|Yes|Yes|
|management|||||||||||||||||
|(E) School FE|No|No|No|No|No|No|No|Yes|No|No|No|No|No|No|No|Yes|

_Notes_ : The authors’ estimate is based on data from _Prova Brasil_ , Census of Education, and IBGE. Wild bootstrap p-values. 95% CI in brackets. ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1, 5, and 10% critical levels. Standard error in parentheses and clustered at the municipality level. All regressions are weighted by fifth-grade enrollment at the school level. Math performance on a scale from 0 to 350 (SAEB scale). reading performance on a scale from 0 to 325 (SAEB scale). The columns DiD refer to the differences-in-differences estimates and the columns TD show the triple difference-in-differences estimates. The sample of municipalities and schools included in the analysis are detailed in Table 2. (A) municipal fixed effects. (B) students’, teachers’, schools’, and principals’ characteristics. (C) the percentage of teachers that work in a state and a locally-managed school simultaneously. (D) the percentage of teachers working in a state-managed school that implemented the intervention of managerial practices. (E) schools’ fixed effects. All TD estimates exclude state-managed schools in which the state government implemented managerial practices intervention.