COVID-19 – Page 4 – Public Policy Institute of California

Wastewater Treatment Kills Most Pathogens, Including COVID-19 Virus

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Californians reuse treated wastewater as a water supply, to irrigate crops, and to support freshwater ecosystems. To get answers to questions about managing the new coronavirus in the “sewershed,” we talked to two experts: Kara Nelson, an expert in waterborne pathogens at UC Berkeley; and Adam Link, executive director of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies.

PPIC: What risks does COVID-19 virus pose in wastewater?

Kara Nelson

KARA NELSON: We now have evidence that infectious coronavirus is excreted in the feces of infected individuals. The good news is that in the US, we already assume wastewater is full of high concentrations of infectious organisms like viruses, and we have practices in place to deal with them—including ways to protect workers from exposure. Coronaviruses have a different structure from the viruses we usually worry about in wastewater, such as hepatitis A and norovirus—and that structure likely makes it easier to kill. This gives us a high degree of confidence that we have effective treatment to manage the COVID-19 virus. So yes, there are risks, but all the information we have suggests that our existing practices reduce the risk to very, very low levels.

PPIC: Is the virus a risk in the reuse of treated wastewater?

KN: Producing safe, reusable water from wastewater already requires removing pathogens from it. While existing treatments—which are based on science and a regulatory approach developed over many decades—are likely sufficient to deal with coronavirus, we would like to see research that confirms this. Studies have already been launched in California and elsewhere to ensure measures we have in place are sufficient.

The heightened public interest in the virus provides professionals in the water industry an opportunity to share information about why reusing treated wastewater is safe and why we have a very high degree of confidence on how these risks are being managed.

PPIC: What’s the story with “flushable” wipes?

Adam Link

ADAM LINK: This was already a significant issue for us, and the pandemic has brought a huge new influx of wipes and cleaning-product debris into the system. Some wipes are marketed as flushable but don’t actually break down the way toilet paper does. They can sometimes form sizeable sewage blockages that damage pumping infrastructure, cause overflows, and increase our capital costs. CASA and many of our members are engaged in public information campaigns on the problem. Our agencies are working around the clock to keep systems functioning properly and prevent major breakdowns.

PPIC: Do you foresee any long-term impacts from the pandemic for the wastewater sector?

AL: In some ways we are similar to a business, and we have to think about the potential financial impacts of a recession on our systems. There are new orders to not terminate service if payments don’t come in, and we’re likely to see more people who struggle to pay their bills as a result of the financial downturn. So we need to put thought into planning for a new financial future. Our agencies are very good at long-term planning for capital projects, but it remains to be seen how dramatically this will change things from our current expectations. Much depends on the level of stimulus and how quickly things get back to normal.

PPIC: What gives you hope right now?

KN: The agencies and their workers—they’re putting their responsibility to deliver essential services first, before themselves, just like health care workers.

I’m also impressed with how quickly the research community has responded with new research on coronavirus and water. Therapies, tests, and vaccines are obviously the immediate priorities, but water researchers around the world have kicked into high gear to find long-term strategies to fight this and other emerging viruses. One exciting development is a global effort to monitor wastewater for the virus to quickly assess its prevalence in the sewershed; this could potentially help determine if infections are reemerging so we can respond quickly to contain them.

AL: I’m very encouraged by how well our agencies have come together to solve the new problems the pandemic raises and prepare for the worst together. There haven’t been any significant disruptions—and that’s thanks to the lengths these people go to keep the public safe.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Remote Learning for English Learners and Special Needs Students during COVID-19

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]For California’s most vulnerable students, including 1.2 million English Learners (EL) and over 700,000 students with special educational needs, remote learning in the wake of COVID-19 presents particular challenges. As districts across the state roll out distance learning plans to minimize disruption to K–12 students, educators must find alternate ways to meet all student needs.

English Learners and special education students typically require more in-person support, such as occupational and speech therapy, in their daily learning than students in general. Educators are struggling to devise and implement plans to address these requirements remotely. Access to internet and devices is one area of concern, but so is providing intensive learning experiences that can stand in for in-person services.

Most EL and special education students live in large urban areas with access to broadband, and school districts in these counties, such as in the Bay Area and coastal counties in Southern California, may be able to partner with philanthropy and technology providers to supplement households currently without broadband access. Rural areas, however, may not have the same supports.

In counties where broadband access is low—that is, over 18% of households with school-age children lack it—and where the share of EL or students with disabilities is high (over 26%), online learning is a hurdle. This includes Colusa, Yolo, Napa, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Monterey, Kern, and Imperial, which together account for over 220,000 students who have special education needs or are English Learners.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row max_width=”80″ visibility=”visible-desktop”][vc_column][vc_column_text][infogram id=”1p1qw10yewvk2dfmxmvky16prlb6pw1mvrm?live”][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row max_width=”80″ visibility=”visible-tablet-landscape”][vc_column][vc_column_text]

[infogram id=”1p1qw10yewvk2dfmxmvky16prlb6pw1mvrm?live”]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row visibility=”visible-tablet-portrait”][vc_column][vc_column_text]

[infogram id=”1p1qw10yewvk2dfmxmvky16prlb6pw1mvrm?live”]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row visibility=”visible-phone”][vc_column][vc_column_text]

[infogram id=”1p1qw10yewvk2dfmxmvky16prlb6pw1mvrm?live”]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]There are an additional 50,000 such students in counties where we cannot estimate the share of families without broadband, but where concentrations of EL or students with special needs are disproportionately high. In these rural counties—which include San Benito, Mono, Tulare, Modoc, and Yuba—educators must determine how to compensate for lack of internet while offering intensive, though not in-person, instruction.

And it isn’t just students tested by the move to online instruction. In a typical school year, only 67% of teachers received professional development in using computers for instruction. Most received less than eight hours of training.

To fill the gap, more districts are providing training on how to teach students remotely. Courses cover online tools such as Zoom, Google Classroom, Canvas, and Seesaw; how to monitor and assess student learning; and how to manage and cater to student needs in an online environment. The California Department of Education also provided resources and idea banks to help districts accommodate students with varying learning needs, with guidance on options for delivering individualized education.

California continues to provide funding to districts to implement distance learning, through the governor’s executive orders and recent legislation. While distance learning cannot replace in-person instruction and services, educators are exploring alternatives, from reading assignments over the telephone to moving speech and occupational therapy online. Districts are also discussing extending the school year as they work to provide effective and equitable learning to the state’s most vulnerable students.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Displaced by COVID-19: Moving Out of College Housing

With college students already taking courses online in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many are also faced with moving out of campus housing. It’s a necessary disruption to help keep the virus from spreading, but one that can place students far from academic support and other services precisely when they need support and services most.

While the disruption is temporary, the benefits of being on or near campus go beyond proximity to classes. Campus housing gives students better access to tutoring, counseling, health, and academic services. For these and other reasons, students who live in university housing have higher persistence and graduation rates.

Nearly all colleges are urging students to move out, and the vast majority of university-housed students will likely leave—or have left—campus. Some colleges have allowed students to stay in housing if they choose, while others require students to leave unless they qualify for an exemption, such as for international students, for health and safety concerns, or if they do not have a home to return to.

Prior to the pandemic, about 24% of all undergraduate students, at least 177,000, lived in university owned or operated housing at California public and private nonprofit colleges, most commonly in dormitories. Most students living in college housing are at the University of California (UC) and private nonprofit universities, even though the California State University (CSU) system enrolls far more undergraduates. CSU students are much more likely to commute from home or an off-campus apartment. Community colleges, which educate the largest number of college students in the state, rarely own and operate their own housing.

Freshmen are especially likely to live in university housing, making up a slight majority (51%) of the total. About 90% of freshmen at UC and private nonprofits live in college-operated housing. If the pandemic continues to displace students into the fall semester, those colleges will have to grapple with how to help new students adapt to college without living on campus.

The consequences of this large-scale early departure from campus are uncertain. As students move off campus, schools are working to find ways to provide essential student supports and potentially offer new ones, such as laptops and internet access, to limit the disruption in learning.

One effort by the California College Student Emergency Support Fund offered $500 hardship grants for low-income students to help pay for housing, technology, and other expenses. Within 90 minutes of the launch of the application, 1,000 students had applied. Within 24 hours, demand had far surpassed resources, and 65,000 students were placed on a waiting list, suggesting that a significant unmet need remains.

Unemployment Benefits in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Today, the US Department of Labor revealed that 925,450 Californians filed initial unemployment insurance claims during the week ending April 4. This makes for a record-breaking three-week period during which nearly two million claims were filed in California, representing roughly 10% of the labor force. What kind of benefits can these millions of newly unemployed workers receive?

Typically, Californians who qualify for unemployment receive a maximum of $450 per week as long as they are actively looking for work, and that assistance can last for up to 26 weeks. (Notably, benefits in California are less generous than those in most other states: in 2019, its average weekly benefit of $345 ranked 29th.) However, federal policymakers are responding to unprecedented circumstances; so far, they have expanded both eligibility and benefits.

Federal legislation temporarily expands eligibility. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act makes self-employed Californians—including gig workers and other independent contractors—who are unable to work or have had hours reduced by COVID-19 eligible to receive benefits. Also, laid-off workers who expect to return to their current jobs are not required to be searching for work.

The new law also supplements and extends benefits. The CARES Act provides $600 per week on top of typical benefits for up to four months. This represents a dramatic boost for most unemployed Californians. The legislation also covers the cost of a 13-week extension of benefits, so that laid-off workers can now receive unemployment for up to 39 weeks.

Unemployed Californians who earn less than $4,000/month would normally qualify for a benefit that replaces roughly half of their earnings, and the benefit covers a smaller and smaller share of earnings above $3,894/month. The $600 federal supplement is higher than California’s maximum benefit and more than covers prior earnings for many unemployed Californians.

It is likely that workers in the state’s hardest-hit sectors make up a large share of early applicants for unemployment benefits. In the accommodation and food service industry—one of the hardest-hit sectors—the average monthly wage is roughly $2,000; an unemployed worker could receive up to $3,700 per month. The average worker in transportation and warehousing, another impacted industry, earns more than twice as much ($5,000/month), but unemployment benefits for this worker would be only slightly higher: up to $4,550 per month.

These expanded benefits will help millions of newly unemployed Californians, but the state and its workers face important limitations and challenges. Given the massive surge in applications, workers may have to wait several weeks—or months—to receive benefits. Moreover, laid-off immigrants who are unauthorized to work in the US will have to rely on other support.

More generally, California’s unemployment insurance fund reserves are inadequate to weather even a mild recession, although the federal government steps in to loan the funds when needed. In the longer term, policymakers should seriously consider reforms to the unemployment system, so that it can respond quickly and comprehensively in the next economic crisis.

Online Medical Care during COVID-19

California policymakers have recently taken bold steps to ease the strain on the health care infrastructure during the COVID-19 global pandemic. California was the first to enact a statewide shelter-in-place order to reduce community transmission. It has also implemented measures to lower the rate of transmission in health care settings—including policies that encourage the use of telehealth, especially online doctor visits. To make online healthcare truly accessible, however, the state will need to address its digital divide.

The California Department of Managed Health Care has required that all health plans allow people to obtain health care via telehealth and reimburse telehealth consultations at the same rate as in-person visits, without increasing patient costs. This mandate covers Medi-Cal managed-care plans, which serve about 85% of the low-income Californians enrolled in the program. The California Department of Health Care Services had already given providers more flexibility in billing Medi-Cal for telehealth services in 2019; in late March, it further expanded the range of telehealth services that safety net providers can provide.

A recent survey found that a small percentage of Californians use telehealth services, and national estimates (based on Medicare and private health claims data) suggest that telehealth accounts for less than 0.25% of medical services provided. Policy barriers, such as restrictive requirements and privacy concerns, contribute to low usage. Recent state and local efforts to lower these barriers could help boost usage, but not all Californians will be able to access medical care through telehealth due to the state’s digital divide.

Among low-income Californians, those with private health insurance are most likely to have computers in their household (82%), while those covered by Medicare (mostly seniors over 65) least likely to have computers (59%)—indeed, these low-income Californians are less connected than those who are uninsured. About 75% of Californians covered by Medi-Cal have access to a computer at home and about 60% report that they have high-speed internet connectivity.

Some of the policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis could narrow the state’s digital divide. For example, the governor recently announced a plan to distribute computers and provide high-speed internet access to support distance learning for California’s K–12 students while schools are closed. This could help many low-income families gain access to telehealth and other online resources. However, one-third of low-income households do not include school-aged children.

As the public health crisis continues to unfold, it will be important to assess trends in telehealth use and to understand and address disparities. Currently, the state has limited resources for this type of analysis, but the comprehensive health payment database that is currently being developed could help policymakers examine these and other issues.

COVID-19 Will Make California Elections Challenging but Doable

California’s November 3 general election could come in the midst of a new viral surge. This poses tremendous risks to voters and poll workers at in-person voting sites. Even if we wanted to have the same number of polling places, it might be difficult to find volunteers willing to staff them.

The good news is that the transition to a safer approach, while challenging, is more manageable in California than in most states.

One option is off the table: postponing the fall election. Many states have postponed their primaries, but postponing a general election would require congressional approval and would run up against deadlines hardwired into the U.S. Constitution.

Instead, we must get as many voters to cast ballots by mail as possible. In most states, such a switch would be complicated, but California has long been friendly to vote by mail (VBM). California’s VBM rate is very high and growing. Almost two-thirds of ballots in the 2018 general election were either mailed in or dropped off at a polling place.

Fourteen counties have rapidly increased their VBM capacity already by sending every registered voter a VBM ballot by default. They have also replaced polling places with a smaller number of “vote centers” that are open to any voter in the county and for early voting before Election Day. Almost a quarter of registered voters are now covered by this system, up from 7% in the fall of 2018.

Five of these 14 counties switched to this new model in 2018 and saw the share of ballots cast by mail increase an average of 20% from the 2016 general election. Preliminary evidence also suggests the reform slightly increased turnout without negatively impacting underrepresented groups like Latinos, Asian Americans, and young people.

COVID-19 will move elections across the state closer to this model. Governor Newsom has mandated something like this for the special elections coming in April and May. Though this is a realistic path forward, it is not without obstacles. Preparation time is short. And the risk of infection will alter the siting and staffing of in-person options, even in experienced counties.

Furthermore, initial positive experiences in vote center counties may not translate to the rest of the state. A chaotic transition could create unforeseen problems that prompt some to throw up their hands and not vote at all. Young people and voters of color are more likely to use in-person voting, so great care must be taken to ensure they receive news of the change, trust that the change is being done fairly, and have options besides VBM if they want them.

Fortunately, California is well positioned here, too. Organizations like the Future of California Elections have helped make the state a national model for robust communication between election administrators and stakeholders.

The task is daunting, but we have little choice. Our best hope for a safe and fair election is to expand vote from home options as much as possible. The question is not whether to do it, but to recognize the challenges and work to mitigate them as much as possible.

COVID-19 and Crime in Major California Cities

Public safety is one of many areas of life being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that most Californians are staying home in response to the statewide shelter-in-place order, the overall number of reported crimes is declining in four of the state’s largest cities. But there is also evidence of an uptick in some types of crime.

We examined the daily reported crime numbers for two large Southern California cities and two Bay Area cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland. It is important to note that while these cities make their data quickly available for analysis, the numbers are preliminary: law enforcement agencies update and review the data before submitting them to DOJ as official statistics. Also, we do not yet have data on other cities or rural areas across the state. And, finally, it is possible that our highly unusual circumstances are affecting the extent to which crime is reported.

Comparing the average weekly number of reported crimes in February to the number reported for the last week in March shows an overall drop from about 6,150 to 3,620—a decrease of 41%. Declines have been particularly large in the two Bay Area cities: about 69% in Oakland and around 55% in San Francisco. Crime reports began to fall in all four cities a few weeks before shelter-in-place orders were issued for the Bay Area (March 16) and the state (March 19)—after employers started urging their workers to stay home.

Property crime accounts for roughly 80% of the overall decrease: reports fell from a weekly average of 4,270 in February to 2,270 in the last week of March (a drop of about 47%). This trend was driven by a decline in larceny reports, particularly car break-ins. The drop in larcenies, which are most striking in the Bay Area, could quite possibly be largely attributable to the absence of tourists.

Overall reports of violent crime dropped from a weekly average of about 1,880 in February to about 1,360 in the last week of March—a 28% decrease. Oakland experienced the most dramatic drop—from about 200 to 70. The number of reported assaults dropped from 1,430 to around 1,100 (22%). The overall decrease in robberies—from about 350 to 260—was driven largely by the Bay Area.

There are some notable exceptions to this downward trend. While reports of domestic violence are down overall for the four cities, Los Angeles saw an uptick in the last two weeks of March, and the weekly number of reported robberies in San Diego were also up somewhat. More broadly, a slight increase in reported commercial burglaries across all four cities suggests that burglars may be shifting from residential to commercial targets now that so many people are at home at all times of day.

It is too soon to draw firm conclusions about recent trends, but it will be important to track and monitor crime data so that we can identify vulnerabilities in our communities and determine whether new approaches are needed to maintain public safety in these challenging times.

Groundwater Sustainability Planning Undeterred by COVID-19

COVID-19 has forced many of us to find creative ways of working together while sheltering in place. For California’s new groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), that means bringing together diverse groups of stakeholders in virtual forums to develop and implement state-mandated groundwater sustainability plans. We talked to Dave Ceppos—who, as managing senior mediator at Sacramento State’s Consensus and Collaboration Program, is working with many GSAs—about how the pandemic is affecting the complex public outreach process required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

PPIC: Talk about how the pandemic lockdown is affecting the groundwater sustainability planning process.

DAVE CEPPOS: Unlike other public engagement laws and regulations, SGMA requires a dialogue between a GSA’s leadership and affected stakeholders. Planning and decision making need to take into account not only technical information about local groundwater basins, but also social information about water uses and needs. The GSAs have to show they’ve gotten input from water users, and that they’ve considered the impacts of their decisions on the local community. These conversations are hard and nuanced—basically, the GSAs are new regulatory agencies, the groundwater gods for their local area, and that’s a big change. Sheltering in place has made these complex conversations harder. I think GSAs are just getting their heads around the magnitude of the work they have to do under these new conditions, but they are rising rapidly to the challenge.

PPIC: How is the GSA community responding to limitations on public gatherings?

DC: In the past three weeks we’ve seen a pause in some places—the postponement of meetings that were coming up too fast to reconfigure to an online format, for example. But generally, work is continuing, and they’re taking it very seriously. My staff has already done probably six virtual SGMA public meetings. In the basins where plans are still under development, there is an outlying question about a possible need for an extension beyond the January 2022 deadline if the lockdown continues for a significant period of time, but for now it’s business as usual.

The governor’s recent executive orders relaxing some rules about how public meetings are held have been extraordinarily helpful—without them our work would be almost impossible. Meetings are continuing virtually. The agencies we’re working with are fully committed on publicizing meetings and putting out public messaging, but they’re not being hamstrung by Brown Act requirements about having to hold meetings in public places.

PPIC: SGMA involves many players from diverse groups, living in rural areas that may not have adequate online infrastructure for virtual participation. What’s being done to ensure that public participation is inclusive and fair?

DC: Every GSA that I know of is doing their best in terms of their obligation and their commitment to actively engage with the public. That said, not everyone has access to the internet. Not everyone can get information online, or can print agenda packets, which can be mammoth. We have farmers who attend midday meetings by calling in from their trucks—they can’t toggle through those packages or watch an online Powerpoint presentation from their phones. This is a daunting process involving a lot of complex information.

The reality is that even before this current crisis, our society had moved to a digital world that has left some people behind. In conversations we’re having with agencies, there’s typically an immediate rush to the online tools with the most bells and whistles. But for a facilitator, the first question we ask is, “what do we need to accomplish in a particular meeting?” Then we try to find the tools and methods to do that. To facilitate SGMA dialogues, we know that some people call in and can’t use online resources. We seek to create equity in virtual discussions by toggling back and forth between people in the virtual room and those sitting in trucks and kitchens who need to weigh in over the phone. When it comes to fostering inclusive dialogue, it’s not the bells and whistles that do it—it’s structuring meetings and using facilitation methods to make sure equity is maintained.

This is a challenging time, but we will get through it. Facilitators call it “change management,” which is all about helping people through a new condition by setting new expectations and behaviors. The good news is we humans are excellent at this, and we’re doing it already. Whether we need to manage this change for six weeks or six months, we’ll prevail and continue with this important work.

Note: On April 8, Dave Ceppos will lead a webinar by the Groundwater Resources Association of California, “How to Engage in a Socially Distanced World.”

Challenging Times for California

This is a time of global crisis. We are all living through a fast-moving, large-scale disaster that is having extraordinary public health and economic consequences. Here in California, public leaders and private industries took early action to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, putting policies in place to flatten the curve sooner than any other state. And while the full extent of the pandemic has yet to be realized, Californians should feel proud of our state’s ability to assess and respond rapidly to counteract this generational challenge.

The pandemic is touching every aspect of life today. Students, agricultural workers, health care practitioners—all Californians are struggling to adjust to enormous changes in their responsibilities and daily routines. At PPIC, we are thinking about the effects on our state’s most vulnerable populations: seniors living in areas with sparse medical care, children receiving free or reduced price lunches, essential workers struggling to stay above the poverty line.

We are also deeply concerned with what lies ahead. How will our economy—just recently in the longest growth cycle ever recorded—respond in the long term? How can the state improve opportunities for those hardest hit by this crisis? What can we observe, measure, and propose that will help California to rebuild itself efficiently, effectively, and equitably?

PPIC will be delving into these questions as this crisis plays out. For now, in these fluid and rapidly changing times, we are focused on bringing critical facts and information to the table—assessing the state’s economy, people, communities, and environment. Our blog series on COVID-19 provides wide-ranging analyses across key policy areas, from education to health care, from criminal justice to water policy. And the PPIC Statewide Survey will be offering perspectives on the pandemic and the economy from Californians across the state.

For 25 years, PPIC has worked hard to inform and improve public policy in California. 2020 may be one of our most challenging years yet, but we are ready and able to meet that challenge.

⇒ For PPIC’s full series on the coronavirus and California, visit our COVID-19 page.

How COVID-19 Closures May Disrupt Student Learning

All but one of California’s K–12 schools have closed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, causing massive disruptions for the state’s 6.2 million students. This week, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that closures are expected to continue through the end of the school year, although the final decision rests with local officials.

School is technically still in session, but distance learning is unlikely to fully compensate for lost time. Assuming schools remain closed through the school year, how detrimental will this be to student learning?

First, learning time matters. In studies measuring how students performed based on differences in when they took exams, even a few days can have a large impact. We also know that missing school reduces academic performance and that chronic absenteeism is particularly damaging, tied to a variety of outcomes such as achievement, socio-emotional development, and dropout. However, the impact of missing school under normal, predictable conditions is less relevant to our current situation.

Disruption from weather-related closures may be a better gauge for how COVID-19 closures could impact students. Roughly 1.2 million K-12 students in California were affected by emergency closures last year, mainly due to wildfires and other weather-related events. According to data from Maryland, schools fare worse on state exams in years with more weather-related closures, despite these closures accounting for only a week of instruction on average.

However, when we consider the impact of individual student absences versus school-wide closures, the effects of closures are negligible. Educators may find it easier to compensate for school-wide closures by adjusting or delaying lesson plans. While this suggests a reason for optimism, mitigating entire months of lost instructional time will require more than reorganizing lesson plans.

Additional insights come from the long documented phenomenon known as “summer learning loss”: the typical student loses about one month’s worth of learning over the course of a summer. Importantly, summer losses tend to be larger for disadvantaged students who have access to fewer resources and learning opportunities while away from school.

This means that achievement gaps tend to grow during the summer, reversing gains achieved during the year. This is worrisome: if schools remain closed for the remainder of the school year, we may face an even larger “spring and summer” loss.

Notably, these effects would be on top of any effects from having fewer instructional days. Distance learning may help mitigate losses, but the state’s most disadvantaged students may fall even further behind because of inequities in access to computer equipment and internet connectivity.

Continued support for distance learning programs will be crucial as closures continue, as will efforts to give students better access to better online learning. Google’s plan to provide free Wi-Fi and laptops to thousands of students is a step in the right direction.

Policymakers could also consider options to recover lost time over the summer or in the following year, as evidence shows programs that offer more learning time—during the school year or the summer—can benefit students. While this strategy would be difficult and costly to achieve, the severity of the COVID-19 disruption to student learning may justify extraordinary options.