Response to APWG Findings

Dear Amira, Cerri, Haja, Jai, Karen, Mary, Michael, Pat, Pat, Peter and Sarah,

I am writing to express my gratitude and enthusiasm for the very helpful findings and well-supported recommendations that the 2020-2021 Academic Planning Working Group shared on Monday. As I said at the IPPC discussion on Wednesday, you have done the College a great service through this thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion of, as the charge outlined, “options for how we can offer high-quality educational programs for our students under a variety of possible scenarios.” As an incoming president in the midst of the most profound crisis to face American higher education since at least the Great Depression, my gratitude for this work is profound, as I’m sure you can imagine.

As we think about the principles upon which any decisions for the coming academic year will be based, I think there are two fundamental ones: first, the health and safety of the entire Skidmore community—students, staff, faculty, as well as the larger Saratoga Springs community of which we are a part; and second, delivering the Skidmore Education, an intensive, fully engaged, in-person learning experience for our students. The conditions under which we can accomplish the second principle will derive from the first principle; the health guidance from the state, from agencies such as the CDC and the ACHA, and others will ultimately guide what is possible for delivering the Skidmore Education. In addition, our planning needs to consider the financial implications of any scenario(s). Given its fundamental fiduciary responsibility, the Board of Trustees will be paying special attention to the question of what steps will be required to adjust the budget under the plan that we finally adopt. I see these two principles both implicitly and explicitly present throughout your recommendations, which I appreciate. I understand that the working group was not specifically charged to consider the financial implications of the possible scenarios you envisioned, and now that level of analysis can be engaged at this point in the planning process.

I think the group did an admirable job of contemplating many possible scenarios given the current health guidance. (Of course, if we had to make a decision based on the health guidance of the moment, we’d have to go all-virtual by law; but the very concept of a phase 3 and phase 4 assumes that the health situation will change for the better by mid- and late-summer—needless to say, whether that will occur remains to be seen.) Certainly, in order to bring the full complement of Skidmore students to Skidmore and Saratoga Springs by the end of August, either the health guidances will need to be more positive and possible, or we will have to go to extraordinary lengths to find ways to accommodate more limiting guidance. Both of those scenarios may be possible, though it’s hard to see the details of them right now.

The recommendation of starting the week of August 24, so we can send all students home at the Thanksgiving break and not bring them back after that diaspora, seems eminently wise to me. This is consistent with health guidance that suggests extensive travel is a major risk, and also that as we get closer to the winter and the onset of the regular flu and cold season, the C-19 virus may well resurge and we should plan accordingly. It seems to me we should announce this calendar change very soon.

I also concur that all Skidmore faculty need to be prepared to pivot to fully remote instruction at any time in the semester. When that pivot moment might come is impossible to tell right now—indeed, it’s not clear what the tipping point might be, in terms of the health situation. Major questions such as our ability to test, trace, isolate, and quarantine need to be addressed to see this more clearly. But yes, faculty need to prepare for both in-person, virtual, and both models of instruction during the summer.

Your emphasis on the need to do all we can to provide the Skidmore Education to all students really rings true for me. The more we can do this, for the largest group of our students possible, the better. I also wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that Skidmore invest in resources and support to provide this education, both for faculty and for students. Seeking support in technology, instructional design, and pedagogical innovation should be a priority for the summer weeks.

As I sort through the major recommendations, I see four scenarios delineated in your findings:

The cohort concept, of bringing 2 classes of students to campus in the fall, and 2 in the spring.
The single-class concept, of just bringing first-years to campus.
The all-remote concept, in which no students can come to campus and all instruction must be delivered remotely.
The “improved public-health” concept, in which more students could be brought to campus, recognizing that at least some will almost certainly remain off-campus (international students, students with health conditions, etc.).

I recognize that given the current knowledge of health guidance and conditions, the strongest recommendation is for the cohort concept, which, given our current understanding of conditions, may be most likely to allow for some in-person instruction.

I will be very interested in learning more from you about what in your view would need to change to make it possible for more than half the student body to be brought back to campus. Your thoughts on this range of questions will be of great use as we continue to think through how to best provide the Skidmore Education to as many as our students as possible. I would also like to talk through with you how to best support faculty in the months of June and July, as they plan curricular offerings in a context of ongoing uncertainty about what the exact guidance from the state and other agencies might be. In particular, how to plan the curriculum and perform a revised registration seem to me very tough logistical challenges, and I’d welcome your thoughts on these issues.

In the meanwhile, we are continuing to receive additional information, findings, and recommendations from other planning streams in several of the key areas that have such bearing on these decisions. The health questions revolving around testing, tracing, isolating, and quarantining; the resource possibilities of creating additional residential spaces and classroom spaces; the procurement and equipment issues surrounding PPE, plexi-glass, signage, and other necessaries to provide the safe environment that will be a requisite for in-person instruction; campus operations issues of dining service, cleanliness and hygiene protocols, and air circulation standards; and the question of student conduct and participation in the shared community expectations necessary for an on-campus experience—these are all ongoing areas of inquiry that need to be concluded in order for a fully-informed set of decisions to be made about the coming academic year.

It’s clear that there is no attractive solution for the coming year. Disruption and risk are certain. As we continue to think through the best ways to prepare ourselves for the coming year, your work is extremely helpful in that planning and preparation. I look forward to our further discussions on Monday. Thank you again for all your time and effort.

Marc

Report and Recommendations of the Academic Planning Working Group