At the April 21 District 203 Board of Education meeting, the Innovative School Experience proposal was tabled by the board instead of voting on the proposal, as had been originally intended.
The item had listed as a discussion without action agenda item since originally being introduced in its full form at the Feb. 3 board meeting.
“It wasn’t my intent to get to a point where I said table it but some recommendations that have been made by the board you know we haven’t operationalized on what they would look like, what the calendar would look like or how they would happen,” said superintendent Dan Bridges.
The intended proposal that the Board would have voted on at the meeting was not the complete version. Instead, a more limited action was put forward. This action included approving instructional changes such as a modified block schedule at the high school level and different instructional models at the middle school level.
Additionally, this limited action would have approved the development of a school start and end time committee to review the full, original proposal, with a final vote on its implementation anticipated for the beginning of the 2026-27 school year.
Multiple board members were concerned over a lack of empirical data about the community’s perspective on the proposal. Some board meetings covering the proposal have had dozens of stakeholders show up to voice concerns over the proposal.
“Where are the people who are saying we absolutely have to do this as the members of the community?” asked board member Charles Cush.
The discussion about the school day proposal lasted over two hours, the bulk of the three and a half hour meeting.
“I don’t know what the magic time frame is to get the feedback,” said now-former Board President Kristine Gericke. “I feel like we have been inundated with feedback and we’ve been really inundated with the engagement with our staff which I find to be encouraging. I don’t ever expect 100% of everyone to be happy.”
After tabling the proposal, a new board of education was sworn in at the May 5 meeting. The proposal was not present on that meeting’s agenda.
