Richard Pattenaude: How colleges can make the most of COVID-19 relief

From The New England Journal of Higher Education, a service of The New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org)

BOSTON

In the final days of 2020, Congress gave the country a long-overdue Christmas present with the passage of a new COVID-19 relief bill. Known as the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA), the bill is a whopping 5,500 pages long. But for higher education institutions, the real action starts on Page 1872 with the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (known as HEERF II).

How should institutions use this funding? Providing immediate financial support to students is critical, of course—but so is strengthening the institution they attend. Beyond simply replacing lost tuition or room and board funds, some institutions are exploring creative ways to use the funds in ways that increase the effectiveness of their online programs—and provide better support for students in the process.

Included in the CRRSAA is $82 billion for schools, just over one-quarter of which ($22.7 billion) is earmarked for higher education through HEERF II. That represents a 50 percent increase over the amount allocated to higher ed by the original CARES Act last spring. As with the last relief bill, the vast majority of this money ($20.2 billion) will be distributed directly to public and nonprofit institutions, using a complex formula that takes into account factors like student headcount, full-time enrollment and Pell eligibility. In this new bill, institutions will actually be receiving more money than they did in the first stimulus—but they are required to spend the same amount of money on student aid as they spent last time. That translates to a far greater percentage of funds available for other institutional priorities.

With that in mind, once institutions have received their latest relief, what can they do with it? Here’s a rundown of the actual requirements of the bill, as well as some perhaps surprising examples of how institutions have put their relief funding to effective use.

This time around, it appears that there’s more flexibility in the way that institutions can spend these dollars. Specifically, the bill states that institutions may use the funds to:

1) defray expenses associated with coronavirus (including lost revenue, reimbursement for expenses already incurred, technology costs associated with a transition to distance education, faculty and staff trainings, and payroll);

2) carry out student support activities authorized by the HEA that address needs related to coronavirus (for example, institutions have used these funds to purchase laptops for low-income students, provide hot spot or internet service funds, cover costs for computer set up and reimburse PPE expenditures for nursing students); or

3) provide financial-aid grants to students (including students exclusively enrolled in distance education), which may be used for any component of the student’s cost of attendance or for emergency costs that arise due to coronavirus, such as tuition, food, housing, healthcare (including mental-health care) or child care. In making financial aid grants to students, an institution of higher education shall prioritize grants to students with exceptional need, such as students who receive Pell Grants.

In the wake of the bill’s passage, the U.S. Education Department has also released initial guidance outlining how to apply for the funds and how they can be used. In short, this round of financial support provides even more flexibility than the CARES Act did—allowing for not only costs related to the delivery of instruction, but also defraying expenses associated with coronavirus, carrying out student support activities, and making additional financial aid grants to students. What can institutions’ experience with the CARES Act teach us about how best to use these new funds?

Some uses of stimulus funding are, of course, intuitive: providing the immediate support that students, faculty and staff need to keep the lights on and keep learning going. But now with more flexibility, it’s critical for institutions to think creatively and consider how their stimulus dollars can support new approaches to teaching and learning—many of which may last even after COVID-19 someday subsides. In HEERF II as in the previous round of funding, the Education Department allows spending on a broad range of technology tools, stipulating that institutions could “purchase equipment or software, pay for online licensing fees, or pay for internet service to enable students to transition to distance learning.”

Among examples of how institutions put that into practice … When the pandemic forced its library to quarantine textbooks for three days before lending them back out, Santa Fe Community College, in New Mexico, tapped a digital content provider, BibliU, to help expand access to course materials.

Grossmont College, a community college in California, partnered with the video platform GoReact to ensure that their students are still able to demonstrate their skills in a remote setting.

Michigan State University tapped CARES Act funding to partner with Packback, bringing inquiry-based discussion to more classes, even in the age of remote learning.

Institutions that explore these more creative uses of stimulus funding have seen powerful results—not just providing the emergency relief students need, but also building the architecture to ensure a more effective remote learning experience. And with the timeline still uncertain for a return to normalcy, that approach will help colleges and universities set themselves up for success in a tumultuous and ever-changing time for higher education.

What does your institution need to build a more resilient infrastructure for online learning, and how can this new funding help?

Richard Pattenaude is chancellor emeritus at the University of Maine System. Packback is a NEBHE sponsor.

Shailly Gupta Barnes: In crisis, pols focus on helping the rich

Via OtherWords.org

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed fundamental inequalities in this country.

With millions of us hurting — especially the poor and people of color — there’s been widespread public support for bold government action to address long-standing social problems. Unfortunately, our lawmakers haven’t met the overwhelming need to focus on the poor and frontline workers.

Instead, trillions of dollars have been released to financial institutions, corporations, and the wealthy through low-interest loans, federal grants, and tax cuts — all without securing health care, wages, or meaningful income support for the unemployed. This is all unfolding as we enter the worst recession since the Great Depression.

As Callie Greer from the Alabama Poor People’s Campaign reminds us, “This system is not broken. It was never intended to work for us.”

This system treats injuries to the rich as emergencies requiring massive government action, but injuries to the rest of us as bad luck or personal failures. It reflects the belief that an economy that benefits the rich will benefit the rest of us, because it is the rich who run the economy.

It is easy to see how this plays out in policies that directly favor Wall Street, corporations, and the wealthy. But we see it even in policies that appear to be more liberal and equitable.

The CARES Act, for example, provided free testing for coronavirus, but not treatment. It offered unemployment insurance for some who’ve lost their jobs, but not living wages for those still working. It identified essential workers, but didn’t secure them essential protections.

The failure to fully care for workers and the poor is the flip side of the belief that the rich will construct a healthy economy out of this crisis. We see it directly as politicians slash money from public programs during this crisis while refusing to touch the accumulated wealth of the few.

In New York state, Gov. Andrew Cuomo passed an austerity budget that will cut $400 million from the state’s hospitals. In Philadelphia, Mayor Jim Kenney revised the city’s five-year budget to include government layoffs, salary cuts, and cuts to public services. Neither Cuomo’s nor Kenney’s budget made the proactive decision to tax the wealthy.

The same is true in Washington state, where Gov. Jay Inslee has been cutting hundreds of millions from state programs, anticipating major declines in tax revenue. This in a state that’s home to two of the wealthiest people in the world, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.

Of course, the rich are not the driving economic force in the country. It has become crystal clear during this pandemic that poor people, including frontline workers, actually fuel this economy. “We may not run this country,” said Rev. Claudia de la Cruz back in 2018, “but we make it run.”

But now we see the early rumblings of people coming together to assert this reality and challenge our faith in the rich.

Health-care workers, students, child-care givers, food-service workers, big-box-store employees, delivery drivers, mail carriers, and others are taking action to call out gross inequities and organize our society differently. Demands to cancel rent and to secure housing for all, universal health care, living wages, guaranteed incomes, and the right to unions are being heard all across the country.

Meeting these demands would not only secure the lives and livelihoods of millions of people — it would begin to release our economy from the suffocating grasp of the wealthy and powerful. Instead of waiting for wealth to trickle down, we would revive our economy by raising up the poor.

When you lift from the bottom, everybody rises.

Shailly Gupta Barnes is the policy director for the Kairos Center and the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival.

N.E. Council letter to congressional delegation on infrastructure needs

Massachusetts State House

BOSTON

May 5 letter from New England Council President and CEO James T. Brett to the New England congressional delegation:

On behalf of the New England Council, I would like to thank you and your staff for all that you have done in the face of this national emergency to help address the health effects and the economic impacts attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. Our region is fortunate to have such effective leaders advocating on our behalf during this unprecedented time. We are grateful for the relief and economic stimulus measures that have been included in the CARES Act, as well as in the interim supplemental funding measure that was passed just a couple of weeks ago.

This aid will go a long way toward supporting our region’s healthcare providers, as well as the many businesses across an array of industries that have been negatively affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

As Congress continues to work towards mitigating the immediate effects of the coronavirus outbreak, it is necessary to look to ways in which the House and Senate can help lessen the long-term economic implications of this national emergency, while building on your outstanding efforts to date. The New England Council believes that one way to help accomplish this goal is to pursue a job-creating, economy-boosting infrastructure package that addresses a variety of needs for all manner of business, health, education, energy and transportation sectors.

We are heartened that many in Congress share the view that a major infrastructure proposal should be considered, and the New England Council believes the following components should be included in whatever infrastructure package Congress puts together.

Roads & Bridges: The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) recently reported that in 2019, there were 1,513 structurally deficient bridges in New England out of 18,129 bridges. That’s roughly 8.4 percent of bridges in our region, where the national average of structurally deficient bridges is 7.5 percent. We also have a pressing need to fix our roadways to accommodate the increased traffic we’ve seen over the years, not just for carpools and individual drivers but to put roads in a condition that can incentivize bus-rapid-transit (BRT). A state of good repair keeps vehicle maintenance costs down, improves the flow of traffic, enhances safety, reduces gasoline usage, and helps the region attain air quality requirements.

Public Transit: A significant number of residents in our region count on transit to provide a safe, affordable and reliable means of commuting. For others, transit is their only or primary option to get from place to place. The CARES Act included substantial federal assistance for transit, however that funding will address losses attributed to the sudden disruption of daily transportation. When the nation emerges from this pandemic, Americans will still need to be able to count on transit systems. Besides addressing years of transit maintenance backlogs, an investment by Congress to bolster transit can help ensure greater access for commuters, decrease congestion on our roads and improve air quality.

Airports: The CARES Act provided $10 billion in federal assistance to our nation’s airports to meet current needs related to the coronavirus pandemic and the sudden loss of significant amounts of revenue. Pre-pandemic figures showed that airline travel (and thus, airport usage) was expected to proceed on an upward trajectory, but a potential slow recovery from the coronavirus may limit such growth for the foreseeable future. As such, additional considerations may have to be met in the months ahead should losses continue to mount throughout this sector of our economy.

Also, as growth returns to the industry as previously predicted, there will be a need for facility upgrades and new construction to accommodate millions of passengers each day. Ports: The CARES Act also addressed the status of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to help ensure greater utilization of our ports. It is unclear, though, if there will be a requirement for further measures at this point to help increase harbor utilization.

However, as trade with existing partners resumes, and new economic relationships bring heightened activity to our shores, it will be necessary to have enhanced on-shore facility capabilities and channels that can accommodate the vessels that will bring those goods and allow for exports.

Drinking Water and Wastewater Upgrades: Water infrastructure needs across the region constantly demand attention, whether it is for drinking water systems or wastewater treatment facilities. Besides the need to meet new requirements for a growing region, our aging systems – some approaching or surpassing a century old – need replacing as well. Taken together, these needs add up to billions of dollars’ worth of critical expenditures throughout New England. As water quality is enhanced, it ensures health concerns are ameliorated, reduces storm runoff, and keeps our region’s waterways clear of pollution.

Broadband Access: A high priority for any infrastructure bill must include provisions to facilitate and expedite the deployment of broadband. This should include siting proposals that maximize the use of existing infrastructure to accelerate the private sector build-out of wireless 5G networks and funds to install additional infrastructure across the nation, particularly in some of the more remote locations in New England (including western Massachusetts and the northern border regions of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont). Furthermore, telework, telehealth, and remote learning needs will only increase following the example set forth in this coronavirus pandemic further emphasizing the need for robust wireless and wired connectivity. Finally, any effort on broadband expansion should include all Americans.

Energy Systems: Energy reliability is one of the key requirements for our economy and for our overall way of life. Indeed, energy reliability is required “to make sure the lights stay on.” It is also essential to pursue cost beneficial grid modernization investments that will enable the grid to safely and reliably accommodate new clean energy resources that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These distributed generation and distributed energy resources include electric vehicle charging stations that will enable a clean transportation revolution, affordable utility-scale solar power, energy storage facilities and technology, as well as offshore wind development.

Rail: Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor is a key component of interstate transportation between Boston, New York and Washington and locations in between. Maintaining this vital rail link helps to alleviate congestion on our roads and provides another transportation option to the traveling public. The Northeast Corridor received nearly $500 million in the CARES Act, however that will not cover the long-range requirements necessary to expand this crucial transportation link. Congress needs to provide the necessary maintenance to the rail infrastructure in our region as well as those regions that feed into New England. Moreover, Congress should give serious consideration to funding regional rail expansion to help relieve congestion, enhance air quality, and spark economic development beyond traditional hub centers.

Hospitals: If the coronavirus outbreak has demonstrated one thing, it is that hospitals must be considered as a part of our national infrastructure. While many of America’s big city hospitals are being stretched to their limits in this emergency, some communities in our nation have no (or limited) hospital resources at their disposal. A Congressional infrastructure package should give consideration to the inclusion of funds for the construction and renovation of hospitals to ensure we have the ability to adequately manage future potential health catastrophes in our cities and towns alike. Moreover, our nation’s veterans should receive ample consideration as hospital expansion progresses.

Pipeline Safety: The Pipeline Safety Act is past-due for reauthorization and supplemental funds to continue its programs will run out by the end of September. Members of the New England delegation, including those serving on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and other committees, have advocated for the renewal of this law. In addition to establishing safety as paramount, we urge Congress to also consider aging pipeline replacement, security, and capacity concerns.

Education: A Congressional infrastructure package should include federal support for capital needs on public and private higher education campuses as well as for elementary and secondary schools. Such investment will be crucial to keeping our education infrastructure modern and able to accommodate students on updated campuses. Additionally, Congress should consider the inclusion of technology infrastructure, including audio and visual infrastructure in classrooms for remote video and participation, virtual desktop infrastructure, learning management systems, broadband, hardware and software, as well as tools that will assist students with disabilities.

Research: Support for our nation’s research infrastructure is necessary to cement our overall research capabilities and boost our competitiveness for years to come. We urge Congress to include such priorities as high-speed computation, easily accessible and large-scale research data repositories, laboratory and research working environments with greater resiliency to pandemics, and core facility upgrades to modernize shared instrumentation and equipment to increase research capabilities, services, and efficiency. Work at such research facilities would put American researchers at the cutting edge of developing cures and treatments for possible future pandemics.

To maximize federal investments in infrastructure, Congress should include in legislation incentives and programs to foster better adoption of digital technologies in the planning, design, construction management and operations of infrastructure. These technologies can help accelerate project delivery, reduce project costs, enhance construction safety, minimize waste and lead to more innovative and sustainable infrastructure for our nation.

Also, whether it’s new construction or necessary upgrades, climate resiliency must be a requisite consideration for project designers and managers alike. Further, it should be fundamental that any new or upgraded infrastructure component requires elements of cybersecurity protection as a core necessity. Additionally, for some state and local governments hit hard by coronavirus, it may be necessary for Congress to give flexibility when considering the economic abilities of non-federal partners to meet cost-sharing requirements on project awards. These are some of the infrastructure priorities that our members have identified, and in the weeks ahead, others may emerge that our members may wish to have addressed.

The Council may seek to reach out further should it become necessary or beneficial to discuss those with you. Both the House and the Senate have already put forth substantive infrastructure proposals, and we urge the members of both chambers to look towards those proposals as you work towards a compromise infrastructure bill; one that will create jobs, boost the economy, and meet existing and anticipated infrastructure needs. Many have dubbed such an effort as a “Marshall Plan for Infrastructure” and that is clearly what the United States can and should accomplish in the wake of this pandemic. Again, on behalf of our members, thank you for all your efforts to date to help combat this virus and help stabilize our region. .