Reopening: Reports and Issues

These webpages are set up for faculty, grads, and staff who may wish to read and comment on selected portions of  the reopening committee final reports. The number of comments is given in  parentheses. Post comments below if they are related to reopening but not covered in either of the reports.

Ugrads, parents, alums and others go here to read and post comments.

Committee on Preparation for Online Teaching (Final Report)


Substantive Curriculum and Modes of Delivery   More   Post Comments (15)
Effective Online Delivery    More   Post Comments (0)
Student Experience   More   Post Comments (0)
International Students and Instruction   More   Post Comments (0)


Options Regarding Labs and Studios    Post Comments (0)
Grading and Academic Integrity   Post Comments (0)

Committee on Teaching Reactivation Options (Final Report)

Public Health Strategies and Analysis

Identification and Containment of Infection Post Comments (5)
Mitigation of Spread       Post Comments (3)
Oversight, Implementation, Monitoring     Post Comments(2)
Frazier Modeling   More   Post Comments (39)
Protecting the Vulnerable During Residential Instruction   Post Comments (4)
Communication   Post Comments (2)


Protocol    Post Comments(1)
Messaging   Post Comments (0)

Student Life

Hotel Use for Quarantine and Isolation    Post Comments  (1)
Behavioral Modification    Post Comments  (0)
Mental Health    Post Comments  (0)
Off-Campus Students   Post Comments  (1)


Capacity   Post Comments (0)
Scheduling   Post Comments (0)


Options and Accommodations for Graduate Students   Post Comments  (138)
Modifications to Academic Activities   Post Comments (0)
Academic Calendar   Post Comments  (1)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 thoughts on “Reopening: Reports and Issues

  1. Thank you to all for working hard on both reports and model. For now world, regional and national agencies are reporting COVID19 cases going down. However, the USA continues to be the main nation of explosion of Infection And dead cases and expanding. Our travelers could be a potential liability to the health of citizens in other parts of the world not only coming from other low risk COVID19 cases. We should take a second look to for this model to the current situation in the US where many Fase One cities and tows are emerging as happen to New York City and Seattle months ago. What are the stocks of supplies (masks, disinfectants) and other resources (staff train) to Confront a potential scenario as some SUNY colleges experience in March.

  2. Where is the survey and data that the Frazier modeling relies on for estimating the return rates of undergraduate students (regardless of instruction mode)?

    In the WSJ article, Pollock stated that it’s as many as 50% of undergraduates reported they would return. From my reading of the Frazier report, the lower bound (“optimistic”) scenario is 8000/15000 undergraduates returning to Ithaca in the fall if there is a virtual instruction regime.

    So what is it? As many as 50% or as little as 50%?

  3. It’s interesting to see my colleagues engage with this report and the underlying model much as they would peer review for a journal article. As an experimentalist, I am approaching this discussion as if I were planning for an IRB submission. After all, what are we really doing here? Examining how well our testing and quarantine interventions will be at mitigating COVID-19 infections. It should be clear to all of us that this model, along with the rest of the plan, would not provide sufficient assurance of population safety such as to pass muster with our own IRB, let alone any credible IRB. You couldn’t get participants to register for this study if they weren’t strongly incentivized by degrees and paychecks (as is the case with our captive population of students and faculty/staff).

    I appreciate the work that went into the report. A lot of people acting in good faith spent time preparing it. In the end, however, I keep coming back to one important observation. Our IRB would not approve this plan for research, so why are we trying to approve it for the real world?

  4. Most of the recommendations from the POT and TRO committees focus entirely on the return to on-campus (or virtual) teaching of our undergraduate and graduate student populations. This is understandable and their work is to be commended. But neither if these reports offers any guidance for those of us that do most of our educational delivery off campus (I am a Senior Extension Associate in CALS, and much of my work is delivered to groups in off campus settings). Aside from suggesting that ‘non-essential’ travel be banned or substantially reduced, little else is said about our options for returning to offering in-person instruction to non-traditional adult learners. (And I assume, of course, that any such activity would abide by other recommendations such as the use of PPE, group size limitations, de-densifying classroom spaces, etc.) I would like to see more guidance for extension educators such as myself. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.