Flossmoor School District 161 officials are still on the fence about what criteria will prompt them to consider the reopening of their schools to wide-scale in-person learning, but there is now a tentative timetable in place to make those decisions.
Superintendent Dana Smith presented the timeline Monday, Dec. 14, during a regular meeting of the board of education.
With it, he asked the board to consider two specific restarts, one of which would bring back its remote-from-school learners, special education students and preschool students on Jan. 25, pending favorable local COVID-19 numbers. The second would focus on the remaining students willing to return to in-person learning, with a target date of Feb. 16 — followed by March 8 and April 12 backup plans.
“That’s where it gets a lot stickier,” Smith said.
Smith called April 12 the last real opportunity to bring students back for the remainder of the 2020-2021 school year, but some board members debated whether or not it would even be worthwhile at that point. Board member David Linnear, for instance, said the Jan. 25 and Feb. 16 dates made sense to him, but he was not sure there was value in starting in-person again any later than that.
“After that, I don’t know what we’re really standing to gain,” he said. “We need to try to return to some type of children in school (schedule) sooner rather than later.”
But Board President Michelle Hoereth said if that ends up being the district’s only option, returning in the last months of the school year would be better than no return at all.
“I think there is a lot that can happen positively in our favor between now and that March date,” she said. “If we could give our students the last 7-8 weeks in the building, I would actually like to do that.”
Smith noted there is another concern regarding timing for the later return possibilities, as the state is scheduled to administer the Illinois Assessment of Readiness test in April. Smith said there is lobbying for and against that assessment, but there is currently no federal waiver from testing. If that plan holds, Smith said returning to in-person learning at that time could create additional stress for students.
“If we decide to bring kids back on April 7 or even afterward, we’re going to be right in our Illinois Assessment of Readiness window,” Smith said.
Linnear said that in addition to the assessment concerns, coming back later would run into spring break. He also worried that it would break everyone from a routine that, for better or worse, will be well-worn by that point.
“It’s just a timing issue,” he said. “I think if you’ve got parents and children in a routine, and they’re already doing things on a routine from August to March, why not just go April and May?”
But Hoereth argued that parents of students in K-2 grades might feel differently about that. And there were social considerations at the highest grade level, she said.
“I’m certain eighth graders would want to spend some time together before they transition out of 161 and into the high school,” she said. “It’s worth it, as long as we think it is safe.
“Looking at all angles, I don’t want to discount time that could be in the buildings if we can make it happen.”
As it related to the younger learners, Linnear said concerns facing those grade levels are all the more reason to get them back with more time on the clock.
“When I look at the young learners, I would really like to try to get them in as soon as possible,” he said.
A limited group of students in the remote-from-school program, including those in special education, started back at the end of October, but didn’t return after the Thanksgiving break because of rising COVID-19 case numbers locally and around the nation. To bring them back by Jan. 25, the board would need to make a decision by its Jan. 4 meeting to give staff enough time to get ready.
“This also gives us a little bit of time for the vaccines going out to get a little more spread,” Smith said, though he added he does not expect it to be enough by that point to influence the board’s decision.
To bring everyone else back under a hybrid learning plan by the Feb. 16 date, the board must make a decision by Jan. 25. Similarly, the possible March and April return dates would require decisions at board meetings in the months preceding them. If no other decision is made by March 22, the rest of the 2020-2021 school year would remain remote, Smith noted.
If students return to the building in one of those timeframes, the board and administrators will also have to make program choices, Smith said. Bringing back large groups will likely change the schedules of both teachers and students.
“We know that is a big deal, especially for our children,” Smith said.
Smith added that there is a human element to all of this, too, that cannot be disregarded in the decision-making process. The spread of COVID-19 means the district will have to take into account how staff are doing and who is available, even if the case numbers might be good for a possible return.
“We can’t lose sight of the fact that all of these (options) are predicated on human beings,” he said.
Board member Christina Vlietstra asked if more students were allowed to come back for hybrid learning, would the remote-from-school students be able to continue that program. But Smith recommended against it.
“I would recommend doing one or the other,” he said.
Board member Stephen Paredes said he understands that people want to be able to plan for the future, “even if it’s not the future they know from last year.”
But in addition to “when,” the board is still left with the questions of “if” and “why” they want to try a return to in-person learning this school year.
“I think we need to have a clear idea of why we want kids to come in,” he said. “What are we going to achieve, and how is that going to outweigh the benefits of doubling down?”
Smith’s report to the board notes he thinks it is prudent to follow data related to any possible reopening, which was not warranted at the time of the meeting. Smith added they should survey families and staff, as well as follow vaccine availability, as they make their decisions. But having a timetable should help District 161 either way.
“If we know what a potential timetable can be, we can start planning and that should be enough,” Smith said. “It really comes down to community choice.”
Parents are to receive a reopening survey on Jan. 5. Notification of a return to in-person learning would go out by Jan. 27.
“I have a profound appreciation for where every single family is in making this decision,” Hoereth said. “I’m hoping that as frustrating as it is for families that we all understand … we are operating in unprecedented times. There’s a certain amount of flexibility, and we have to be nimble. It’s almost like it’s this moving target, and it’s frustrating.”