There’s no shortage of self-assured opinions on whether and how schools should reopen. In the middle of the pandemic’s second surge, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos declared that schools “must fully open, and they must be fully operational.”
On the other extreme, the American Federation of Teachers announced intentions to prevent in-person instruction “by any means necessary.” On a daily basis, the nation’s premier op-ed pages host strident takes on whether schools should reopen remotely or in person, and how.
Lost in the wash of opinions, however, are the perspectives of those who bear both the authority and responsibility for these decisions. I had the chance to interview a dozen district leaders, and one thing was plain: There are no good options for reopening schools.
The choice between serious community health threats and certain and widespread educational, social, and emotional setbacks for students is incredibly difficult. Exacerbating this challenge for superintendents are the numerous factors frequently overlooked by armchair pundits: conflicting stakeholder opinions, market pressures, incomplete help, and ongoing uncertainty. Digging deeper into the complex tangle of factors superintendents have to sort through helps illuminate why their choices will have major downsides and what we can expect from the school year to come.
First, many superintendents faced serious resistance from faculty to returning in person. Histrionic reactions from teachers were more common than might be expected, such as the email to one superintendent that said, “My blood is on your hands.” Another asked, “Do you want me to die?” While most teachers had more measured reactions, one superintendent described widespread apprehension, where “teachers believe they’re being placed on the altar of convenience.” The challenge of reopening doesn’t end at making schools safe for teachers; the next step is convincing teachers they have done so.
In contrast to teachers, many families drove the momentum toward reopening in person. Parents’ opinions on reopening were often split across economic lines. One superintendent reported that the sizable minority of parents that wanted remote-only learning “were all two-income households.” More lower-income families, by contrast, desired to return in person. “Part of the reason why we think it’s imperative to go back [in person] is that many of our parents are essential workers,” reported another superintendent. In many cases, superintendents are not only hard-pressed to satisfy teachers’ and parents’ divergent views but also those of families with different needs.
Beyond their divided constituencies, both public and private district leaders also have to contend with increased budget uncertainty and intensified market pressures. District leaders all faced significant budgetary constraints and growing pandemic-related costs. Some public district leaders were moving forward on faith, using deficit spending to cover new costs and hoping that money to balance their books would come from somewhere.
Worse still, private school leaders faced a potentially existential budget threat, with one saying candidly, “If I don’t open face-to-face, five days a week, people aren’t going to pay to come.” Competitive pressures across sectors only compounded these budget troubles. Some private superintendents saw applications increase because they were returning in person while neighboring districts went remote. One public superintendent felt that pressure from the other side, saying, “If the [school option] right next to you provides instruction, you’ve got a huge revenue loss to contend with.” For both public and private schools, the pandemic has increased budget uncertainty and intensified market pressures.
On top of all this, superintendents had to make key public health decisions, often without the personal proficiency or expert assistance to guide them. “I want the medical experts to tell me what to do when I have outbreaks in my school … I don’t think I’m qualified to make that decision,” reported one. Another was getting help on contact tracing but was “really getting zero [health department] guidance in the area of reopening schools … There’s nothing coming.” District leaders were even less pleased with guidance from the state and federal levels, with one candidly saying, “From the state, [guidance] has been miserable.” Guidance from federal authorities was described as “insane” and given “with a total lack of context.”
Finally, the shifting regulatory landscape, in tandem with the unpredictable spread of the virus, only exacerbates superintendents’ challenge of grappling with all these trade-offs. “The uncertainty has been tremendous,” said one superintendent. “The assumptions change frequently, sometimes daily.” Without the luxury of solving an oversimplified version of this problem, these capable leaders are working on moving foundations to choose a path forward when every option has significant downsides. As one described it, “We’re all trying to find the best worst option that we can.”
The beginning of this school year, the most difficult of our lifetimes, has districts stumbling out of the gate regardless of how they choose to open. In fact, with COVID-19 cases fluctuating by the week, this opening is simply the beginning to what will be a chaotic school year overseen by a distracted and overburdened education system. The best decision-making today may still make for an incredibly disappointing year, and no one knows how long the uncertainty may last.
What we do know for certain is the ramifications of this tumult and uncertainty will be dismal for student learning and well-being. While school and district leaders choose the best worst option, the real question is how long the virus will keep good options off the table.
That may be a long time. As one superintendent commented: “There is no end date in sight. We know it’s longer than a year. We know it’s longer than a vaccine.”
Nat Malkus is a resident scholar in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
