The U.S.A. higher education response to Coronavirus started with the
recommending that colleges and universities consider canceling foreign exchange programs in early March 2020. The statement was broad and encouraged discretion at the institutional level and did not indicate a time frame for the advice. This approached resulted in statements such as that by Ravi Shankar, president of
that the CDC advice applied only to international students in the U.S.A., rather than U.S. students studying abroad. The ultimate economic damage of multiple aspects of internationalization was estimated at
in the U.S.A. and was accompanied by
at the Council on International Education Exchange (CIEE) due to the anticipated decline in the need for its services. Once the harsh reality set in, campuses and international educators saw that
Campuses responded by setting up emergency management teams, benchmarking with each other, using
to respond to the continuing spread of the virus. The level of
" perspective to help in making difficult judgments. Some faculty responded by offering their content expertise, exploring the
relevant for both the immediate and long-term. Integrating faculty expertise and engaging with them during the Coronavirus pandemic became part of the "
" that would hopefully avoid the divisiveness that sometimes emerges when tough decisions are made.
, something that is somewhat unusual in the competitive higher education world. As colleges and universities strove to respond, a
emerged. Elite institutions monitored the
(characteristic of more privileged populations), an issue that became increasingly important as students were
countries. Those institutions
struggled to respond. On the positive side,
, which are often under-resourced in comparison to elite universities, hoped for some benefit from the unfolding recession and the resulting decline in job opportunity. Community colleges could also benefit from the
, some of which pivoted to modified educational practices, hoped to survive by being more nimble in their decision making.
was at the epicenter of Coronavirus in the U.S.A. from the beginning and preliminary reports from faculty indicated that the
was handled as well as could be expected. Its example was instructive but much was left to be worked out at the individual campus level. In addition to advice from the University of Washington, the
offered advice based on looking back at the SARS outbreak of 2003 in Singapore. Institutional leaders are key in navigating such tumultuous times and the response of
, and others is pivotal. A
revealed an array of concerns; at the top of the list was the mental health of employees and students, which was followed by budget and student engagement/retention concerns. Institutional leaders will be identifying
than is optimal. Plugging budget gaps in appeals to alumni and friends was an option for some colleges and universities but
Some higher education professional/academic associations cancelled or moved their conferences to on-line. The
American Council on Education, an organization for Presidents that cancelled their annual conference, likely modeled that other groups should cancel as well. The cancellations of the
NASPA (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators) and the
5th Transatlantic Dialogue in Luxembourg were examples in and outside of the U.S.A.
The
hodgepodge of institutional closures was based on different rational but created confusion. Decisions such as the
Cal State system remaining virtual through Fall of 2020 reflected its
specific circumstances, including heavy percentage of commuting students, stable enrollment, and robust on-line course offerings. Most community colleges are
trending toward staying virtual. Conference cancellations and
suspended or no-spectator sports competition became the
new norm, changes that could result in
redirecting the usage of major facilities such as sports, entertainment, and arts spaces. Concerns about the impact of the new norm of social distancing were seen in the
NCAA tournament cancellation and
reduction of the number of sports programs on campuses. Cancellations of sports was only one aspect of the rich face-to-face contact in and out of class that accompanied the Coronavirus pandemic. For those students and their families who looked forward to celebrating their graduation, the loss of this passage was heart-breaking but some institutions moved to
virtual commencements to make the best of it.
So many
campuses cancelled classes or moved to
on-line instruction that
spreadsheets were compiled to keep track of the trends. While on-line learning or no learning at all appeared to be the only alternatives, forced migration to different ways of learning led to
disillusionment or innovation depending on how the campus handled the changes. Summaries related to U.S. federal guidelines and actions taken by colleges and universities to cope with the impact of Coronavirus are periodically updated with the latest from
Inside Higher Education:
- March 13-15
- March 16 - cancellation of SAT/ACT and beginning of commencement cancellations
- March 17 - economic impact and more commencement cancellations
- March 20-23 - expanding emergency health facilities on campus and protecting graduate and contract workers
- March 24
- March 25 - budget and hiring freezes emerge
- March 26 - stimulus package and refunds
- March 27 - U.S. government stimulus and hiring freezes/cuts
- March 30 - Arizona class action lawsuit for refunds
- March 31 - how will higher education benefit from 2T federal package?
- April 1 - funding options and budget shortfalls
- April 2 - U.S.A. Dept of Education issues distance education rules
- April 3 - seeking funding through COVID-19 stimulus
- April 6 - virtual recruitment and Zoombombing
- April 7 - university presidents and athletic staff take pay cuts
- April 8 - declining enrollment and budget cuts
- April 9 - nightmares and emergency student support
- April 10 - COVID-19 and employment
- April 12-18 - sequenced summary
- April 19-25 - sequenced summary
- April 27 - some areas begin to reopen
- April 28 - cellphone data reveals growing mobility
- April 29 - is COVID-19 resurgence possible?
- April 30 - reopen announcements begin
- May 1 - global ratings cuts for many colleges
- May 4-10 - sequenced summary
- May 10 - 17 - sequenced summary
- May 18 - confusion one CARE distribution to students
- May 19 - vets undeserved in CARE aid
- May 20 - decisions on virtual vs. campus instruction
- May 21 - ASU summer enrollment sets record
- May 22 - COVID-19 testing on campus
- May 26 - Education Dept. guidance
- May 27 - FAFSA applications down, especially among most in need of aid
- May 28 - expanding National Science Foundation
- May 29 - National Governors seek advice
- June 1 - NCAA COVID-19 recommendations
- June 2 - Inside Higher Education ceases intensive focus
Subsequent updates are posted here.
Teaching and learning
fundamentally changed as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic as more on-line or blended learning was implemented to reach students and reduce budgets. Temporary changes included institutions moving to
Pass/Fail grading. Ed Tech vendors, partners when helpful and
predators when they take advantage of institutions, offered assistance on
moving learning content on-line, raising concern about
access to the technology (especially for
students with disabilities) that replaced face-to-face instruction. Faculty who had Chinese students who were back in China after interrupted study abroad needed to consider if use of
some on-line resources were restricted or monitored. Another problem for Chinese students is that
backlash to Australia's inquiry into China's handling of COVID-19 may result in boycotts of the Australian higher education sector.
Student affairs and academic support staff, whose contributions are in out-of-class settings, sought to interpret patterns of student engagement, targeting those who were less involved, and fostering students' interaction with each other. Unfortunately, campuses had to determine how to respond to
students' violation of social distancing and other COVID-19 prevention policies.
Other teaching resources for a no classroom environment were proposed and Inside Higher Education offered a reader
questions board to assist managers/leaders with decisions about handling the Coronavirus. The President of one of the leaders in on-line delivery of courses in the U.S.A.,
Southern New Hampshire University, offered tips on how to be most effective in on-line delivery and
spoke in a podcast about the reboot of SNHU's campus-based programs. Joining the U.S.A. trend,
Australia also shifted much of higher education instruction to on-line.
Contingency planning and faculty reflections on the
impact of shifting to remote learning helped to inform the process of change.
Determining what approach to use and the timing of a
return to face-to-face instruction was both a pedagogical and budgetary consideration, with the potential of a
late Fall start, an
early Fall start (with completion before Thanksgiving), waiting until
Spring 2021 a possibility, and pursuing a number of other
learning innovations.
Unequal access to higher education, including neglect of
DACA students, has been problematic and could be further exacerbated by temporary or continued reliance on on-line methods. Prospective and current students, especially those with financial or other needs, began to
change their educational plans, a concern for budgetary and impact reasons. As individual institutions considered their options, coordination across different types of institutions appeared not to occur, with approaches such as a "
Visiting Year" at a community college a possibility that could collectively benefit all students and institutions. Warnings against
rushing back to in-person instruction in Fall of 2020 included concerns related to the
ability to test for COVID-19 and infrastructures to
fever checks and campus quarantine facilities, concerns echoed in
Lamar Alexander's recommendations as Chair of the U.S. Senate's health and education committee.
Spring and early summer are prime recruitment and yield time on most campuses; with most institutions concentrating on the welfare of current students, concerns related to the future
enrollment picture for all students and international students loomed in the background, with
mixed expectations reported among different types of institutions. With such
great uncertainty, on-line presence increased,
standardized tests became optional,
yield rates softened, acceptance dates were pushed back, predictions of
enrollment decline increased, and the reality of
students deferring their dreams emerged. By June 2020, the predictions on
enrollment decline eased but concerns persisted. Research on
student perceptions indicated
mixed reviews of the move to on-line learning (including
33% of high school grads who will defer or reject admission if it's on-line learning) and questions about returning to regular instruction in the fall of 2020. The prospect of students deferring enrollment looms more ominous for less privileged students who are
less likely to have positive alternatives to higher education study.
In relation to specific subsets of students, the impact on Chinese students studying in the U.S.A. was potentially very significant, including for those who
stayed in the U.S.A. while the virus spread. In the early stages of the pandemic a
survey of 234 U.S.A. institutions by the Institute for International Education indicated that 76% reported that outreach and recruitment had been affected by the spread of the Coronavirus and 20% of those institutions had made no plans to change strategy since the health concern emerged. By late May,
88% of surveyed institutions expected a decline in new international enrollment, a prospect only slightly buoyed by the
92% of international students who stayed in the U.S.A. when the COVID-19 lockdown hit. As the
Trump administration considered restricting work opportunity (OPT) for international students after graduation, retention of current and the prospect of securing a rebound in new international enrollment appeared unlikely.
While all students are impacted by policy and program changes related to COVID-19,
certain types of students may be more vulnerable than others.
Neurodivergent students face unique challenges. Specific to Europe, students who were in another country as part of
Erasmus exchange are struggling to return to their homes.
Student sub-groups in the U.S.A. such as first generation and those of low socio-economic status have concerns specific to their backgrounds while
international students around the world have have others. U.S.A. domestic
minority students' have unique concerns that may require a
national coalition to retain them; access to technology and where they
reside when campuses close warrant specific attention. For
students who are parents and are now trying to manage on-line learning for themselves and their children, a significant part of the challenge is finding resources that provide help. The financial impact on all students can be significant; students who signaled that they were
likely to expect at least partial refunds turned to
suing for their refunds in other cases. Expectation of refunds was particularly focused on services they will not receive, such as
residence halls and dining services. The prospect of student expectation for refunds then
impacts non-salaried staff who serve in custodial, dining, and other services roles where institutions may seek to cut expenses.
Caring for students is important in these difficult times. Part of this involves encouraging
students to actively manage their personal and educational lives can reduce the sense of having lost control over their futures, especially those facing
poor employment prospects after graduating and entering a
collapsed job market. Looking at
internship alternatives or delayed employment became part of students' and graduates' reality but some predicted that the post-COVID-19 pandemic could provide new opportunities for
recent graduates who will bring new ideas and skills into a changing work environment.
Mental health support is essential in this time of rapid change, especially for those who faced
xenophobic persecution and were
targets of hate groups;
partnership with students and incorporation of time to reflect on the
impact of COVID-10 in instruction can help.
Faculty can help to restore hope in students' thinking by communicating in ways that
recognize the urgency they feel even if it is difficult while
adjusting to primarily on-line. In an environment where
role strain is likely,
faculty need to be supported by their institutions and
expectations of productivity should be modified;
graduate students have a unique set of concerns as well.
Students organized efforts to help each other. Student
advising became more important than ever, by necessity a shift to virtual formats for prospective and continuing students. As some institutions moved to on-line instruction for the
summer of 2020, concerns were also raised about the
impact of COVID-19 extending beyond the current crisis.
As investors around the world shuddered at the economic impact of COVID-19, it became clear that the
impact to higher education is sizable and long term, justifying continued
attention to higher education as a critical resource for individuals, industries, and governments.
Forcasting the changes that lie ahead will need to include
sweeping innovations that integrate education into the
fabric of recovery in urban centers where many of the best educational and cultural organizations are located. Proposals will be imperfect as they emerge, but considerations related to
market disruption and financial dislocation must begin now
if "college" is to be saved for a broad number of students. One of the first of the impacts will likely be a recalibration of how
on-line interaction/instruction are factored into the larger comprehensive higher education picture; consideration here must include
families' willingness to pay for on-line learning. The second will be adjusting budgets, sometimes at
unprecedented levels. While
some institutions planned to avoid cutting staff, others anticipated temporary (and perhaps long-term)
furloughs or
cuts to searches for new hires (
even presidents), based on
gradual past decline in state support,
lost revenue during the pandemic crisis,
state budget cuts, and questions about possible federal help. Those institutions
facing closure or
relocation/consolidation must be
honest with students and families. The third impact is one that could be very positive -
increased networked relationships to help colleges during and after the pandemic.
