Technology Disruption: Rethinking Instructional Continuity

The recent Canvas data breach and resulting service disruption raised a critical question for higher education: What happens when the digital infrastructure that underpins teaching and learning becomes unavailable?^Footnote1 On May 15, more than 300 members of the EDUCAUSE teaching and learning community joined a panel-led QuickTalk to explore this question through the lens of instructional continuity.^Footnote2 The conversation was not simply about the Canvas incident but was framed more broadly around institutional readiness for digital disruption. Despite the fact that colleges and universities—prompted by COVID-era necessity—have spent years preparing for disruptions that require learning to quickly move online, the discussion made clear that many institutions are far less prepared for the reverse scenario. How does instruction continue when the complex web of digital ecosystems that higher education relies on becomes entirely or in part unavailable?

A Wake-Up Call That We Should Have Seen Coming

One of the strongest signals from the community was the limited maturity of instructional continuity planning across institutions. When asked whether their institution had a plan in place at the time of the incident for major teaching and learning system outages, 44% of participants reported they did not have a plan, 35% reported having a plan, and 20% were unsure (see figure 1).

Figure 1. Presence of Instructional Continuity Plan

Participant comments revealed a community in transition. Some institutions relied on continuity practices developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, while others acknowledged that those plans focused primarily on moving instruction online rather than maintaining learning when digital platforms fail. As one participant summarized, “This was a warning for us to develop [a plan for instructional continuity].”

Several participants noted that their current strategy was still evolving—many were updating existing plans, while others candidly described their approach as simply “winging it” when major systems become unavailable.

Panelists emphasized that instructional continuity is not a challenge that can be solved by technology teams alone. Rather, it is a shared institutional responsibility requiring collaboration between IT, academic leadership, faculty support teams, accessibility experts, and other stakeholders across the institution. Effective continuity planning requires institutions to establish clear roles and expectations before a disruption occurs rather than while responding to one in real time.

In the wake of the Canvas incident, many institutions immediately focused on whether course content could be replicated elsewhere, such as in an alternative platform. The panelists noted that having access to instructional materials was important but that recreating content elsewhere does not fully address instructional continuity concerns. They emphasized that LMS backup strategies involve a series of trade-offs that must be intentionally considered. Solutions designed to maximize availability and rapid access often introduce new challenges, especially related to accessibility, data governance, increased security risk, and institutional supportability. For example, maintaining duplicate core sites in a secondary platform creates significant administrative burden for instructors. While encouraging faculty to store course materials elsewhere can make content easier to access during an outage, it also makes it harder to govern, secure, and ensure accessibility.

Rather than focusing solely on where course content resides, panelists recommended considering the broader teaching and learning ecosystem. Effective continuity planning should account not only for access to materials but also for student and faculty experiences, support structures, and the risks introduced by alternative workflows. The goal is not simply to create backup LMSs but to develop continuity strategies that balance resilience, usability, accessibility, and institutional responsibility.

The Secret Superpower of Resilient Digital Learning Ecosystems

One theme of the discussion was the complexity of defining what institutions actually need when they talk about dealing with technological disruptions. For some, the incident revealed serendipitous benefits of their institution’s existing data infrastructure. A participant from Penn State shared how a learning analytics tool originally designed to provide course insights became a critical continuity resource by allowing faculty to access course rosters and published grade information during the disruption. The University of Central Florida’s daily Canvas data snapshots provided access to grades and allowed the institution to prepare contingency materials for faculty if the outage had continued. At the same time, panelists highlighted important gaps. Having access to course rosters or gradebook information does not necessarily mean an institution has access to unpublished grades, assignment submissions, student work, or all instructional materials.

The discussion also highlighted difficult financial and operational questions. Maintaining a “shadow” LMS or more robust backup environment—a common practice a couple decades ago—may improve institutional resilience but comes with significant costs and ongoing maintenance requirements. Community members noted that many institutions moved to SaaS platforms precisely to reduce the burden of maintaining complex systems internally, making a return to duplicate infrastructure unappealing.

Audience polling reflected this tension. When asked whether their institution was exploring tools to provide more robust LMS backups, 81% reported they were not, while only 19% indicated they were investigating potential solutions (see figure 2). Cost emerged as a common concern among participants.

Figure 2. Presence of Instructional Continuity Plan

Communication, Shared Responsibility, and Preparing Faculty and Students

The incident demonstrated that technology failures are also communication challenges. Panelists described the importance of having clear pathways for communicating with faculty and students when primary systems are unavailable. The community discussed practical preparedness strategies, including ensuring that instructors know where to find student rosters, maintaining copies of critical course materials outside the LMS, developing alternative communication channels, and setting expectations with students about their own role in maintaining access to important coursework. Participants also recognized that continuity cannot become solely a faculty responsibility. Successful planning requires institutional support, clear expectations, and practical workflows that do not create unnecessary burdens for instructors. As one participant noted, “It takes a village to share responsibility for instructional continuity.”

Questions Institutions Are Still Trying to Answer

Perhaps the clearest takeaway from the QuickTalk was that much of the higher education community is still in the early stages of defining what instructional continuity should look like in an era of deeply interconnected digital ecosystems. When asked to reflect on the greatest needs for shared learning and practical guidance surrounding instructional continuity, QuickTalk attendees voted the following as the most challenging:

• What are the critical elements of an instructional continuity plan? What templates or frameworks might help institutions get started? Who is doing it really well?
• What alternatives should institutions use when part of the digital teaching ecosystem becomes unavailable?
• What strategies are needed when course content, communication, assessments, and student work live primarily within the LMS?
• What best practices should institutions provide to faculty and students before an outage occurs?
• How can institutions balance backup strategies with accessibility, usability, privacy, and security concerns?

These questions point to a broader challenge facing higher education: ensuring that the growing reliance on digital platforms does not create vulnerabilities that put the academic mission at risk.

The Canvas incident served as an important reminder that instructional continuity is not simply an IT concern. It is a shared institutional responsibility requiring intentional collaboration at big tables. The community’s response to this QuickTalk demonstrated a clear appetite for continuing the conversation. Institutions are seeking technical solutions but are also looking for frameworks, examples, and peer networks that can help them move from reactive responses to more intentional and proactive approaches to sustaining teaching and learning during future disruptions.

Notes

1. Isaac Galvan, Susan Bouregy, Joshua Gonzalez and John Virden, “How Higher Education Is Responding to the Canvas LMS Incident and Preparing for What's Next,” EDUCAUSE Review, May 11, 2026. Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.↩
2. “When Tech Goes Down: Teaching & Learning Continuity After the Instructure Incident,” Member QuickTalk, May 15, 2026. Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.↩

---

Kim Arnold is Director of the Teaching and Learning Program at EDUCAUSE.

Tom Cavanagh is Vice Provost for Digital Learning at the University of Central Florida.

Ben Hellar is Manager, Data Empowered Learning, at The Pennsylvania State University.

Gloria Niles is Chief Academic Technology Innovation Officer at the University of Hawaii System Office.

Olena Zhadko is Interim University Executive Director of CUNY Online at the City University of New York.