Fans Or No Fans?
School districts for the most part united in allowing spectators for basketball, but others deem risk too high and keep fans locked out
(Photo Credit: Bellevue News-Democrat)
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, a consistent tension point has been the balance between health and safety and our normal way of life.
When is it ‘safe’ to send children back into the classroom? Now we know it was safe to keep schools open from the beginning.
When is it ‘safe’ to enter a restaurant? What about mask wearing? Or double-mask wearing? As it has throughout the pandemic, public policy continues to dictate, stoking tensions with private businesses and citizens whom don’t agree with obstinate policies.
Restaurant owners can’t survive without customers. Yet public policies restrict how many customers they can serve. There’s decades of objective data that directly ties the quality of education to success in life. Yet, the coronavirus pandemic is forcing students to be educated in a way not conducive to reaching one’s full potential, officials catering to union demands over those of students.
There are restaurant owners whom worked through public health restrictions by reinventing how they sell food. There are parents rejecting public school lockdowns and in an open educational marketplace, enrolling their children into the less-confining private sector.
By why should business owners and parents have to make that choice? Just because a group of autocrats, high on authority, deem an environment not safe? Who are they to decide what’s best for a business or parent?
Risk analysis is a quality most Americans possess and can do capably. Our fundamental nature as a culture is grounded in the ability to assess a situation, then determine whether to jump in the pool or remain on flat soil. Yet for almost a year, policy makers have told us we aren’t wise enough to assess risk for ourselves.
That drives rational, logic-driven folks crazy.
Here lies the tension points.
And when data rolls in proving policies to be wrong, political agendas driving decision-making, not science, there is no accountability. The right ideas don’t win the day, only those that pass the political-party affiliated Match Game, where meritocracy takes a back seat to hawkish ideology.
Although we are seeing a curtailment of regulatory policy as it pertains to return to play and return to learn in Illinois, a need for conscientiousness towards monocratic policies remains.
If not, the wrong ideas will continue to be spread.
When the Illinois High School Association approved basketball’s return in late January, it included information regarding spectators at events.
That policy, made by the Illinois Department of Public Health, is as follows:
IDPH Region Mitigations IDPH Spectator Limitations
Phase 4 Maximum of 50 spectators
Tier 1 Maximum of 25 spectators
Tier 2 No spectators allowed
As of last week, every IDPH region is in Phase 4. That allows for a maximum of 50 spectators.
There is a provision to the spectator limitation. Here is that provision according to the IHSA:
Players, coaches, refs and other mandatory game personnel do not count toward the spectator limits.
What that means is after players, coaches, officials and other mandatory game personnel (scoreboard operators, trainers, etc) are counted (‘essential’ personnel), each contest is allowed 50 ‘non-essential’ personnel, or spectators.
The key word is ‘allowed.’ Both the IDPH and IHSA are only mandating schools follow the spectator limit. The allowable part, whether to have any spectators at all, is up to the individual school.
Friday, I emailed every superintendent in three of the largest Chicagoland conferences; the North Suburban, Mid-Suburban and Central Suburban Leagues. I sent an email as well to private schools St. Viator and Carmel Catholic High Schools as well as Notre Dame College Prep.
My reason for emailing them was to learn more specifics on how schools planned to handle spectators. Why I sent the emails to superintendents is I was told by a few athletic directors last week that the decisions on spectators would go as high as the superintendent level in most districts. So why not go right to the source?
The inquiry extended to 34 schools. I did not send out that number of emails as many schools fall under the same district umbrella, with one superintendent overseeing multiple schools.
Here is an example of the email I sent:
Hi Dr. Twadell,
How are you? This is Jon Kerr, I publish a newsletter, The Kerr Report, where I write about athletics and education in Chicagoland.
I know basketball is starting to play games next week. I'm aware of the 50 non-essential spectator limit.
Two questions:
*Will your district permit spectators at games?
*How will you make that determination?
Thank you.
I ended up sending a total of 24 emails just like the one above.
I received 12 responses.
A few of the email replies came directly from the intended superintendent, others from athletic directors, administrative assistants or communications personnel.
Here’s one reply from David Schuler, superintendent of District 214.
Thanks for reaching out. Yes, we are allowing spectators - immediate family or household members only. Each player has been allotted two tickets for a game... sort of like a pass list. We are following all of the IDPH Sports Guidance for spectators. Thanks again for reaching out.
Another from David Harris, superintendent of District 220.
Yes...we will have spectators Mostly our parents of the students participating. We are following the IDPH guidelines. I have copied our athletic director - Mike Obsuszt on this email if you have any questions.
Here was Obsuszt’s answer to my questions:
The MSL is allowing home team spectators only at this time. The determination of how many spectators can attend an event is determined by each individual school. Facilities vary from school to school as to how many spectators can be accommodated at an event.
Example: A girls gymnastics meet might be held in one school's main gym where there is ample seating for spectators. At another school the meet might be held in a smaller gymnastics gym where they may have little to no spectators.
For our home basketball games we are allowing spectators for games on our main court. We are allowing 2 family members of each player to attend the game. Their names will be on a VIP Spectator List and they will need to check in prior to entering the facility.
Like anything else, we will make adjustments to our policy and procedures as needed.
All reasonable answers based on the guidelines. Barrington, like almost all of the schools I emailed, have large main gymnasiums that easily allow for 50 spectators when following public health mandated protocols. The systems in place make sense—family members of players should be first in the pecking order.
Almost all of the schools that replied are basically doing the same thing, exercising the 50 spectator limit and granting access.
Another notable response came from Charles Johns, the superintendent of District 225:
The D225 schools will permit spectators at games to the extent possible while adhering to the recently released safety standards. We are evaluating the competition spaces in accordance with the guidelines regarding factors including the size of the space, the layout of the space, and the ability to distance spectators from competitors, coaches, and officials.
At this time, our priority is to make sure that the families of the players have opportunities to attend their students' events. Since each competition space is different, the number of family members and non-family members will vary depending on the sport. We are also assessing our ability to make space available for the media and college recruiters.
I hope these answers are helpful.
The reply for Johns might be the most encouraging for those in his district as he used the word ‘reassessing’. This is not always the case with public officials, who stick with outdated guidelines regardless of current conditions (Gov. Pritzker, anyone?). There has to be an openness to revisit policy over time, as long as mitigations are followed. Rewarding good behavior is a past time of a democracy, after all.
Here was an answer from Ron Girard, the public information officer of District 120.
The North Suburban Conference schools have agreed that spectators will be the responsibility of the home team. Spectators will only be for the home team at our games/competitions. The home school will be responsible for how spectators are allowed and to what number. This is done for two reasons. First, the home school will likely be better equipped to manage a spectator process (who, how many). Secondly, each school has different facilities, thus different capacities. Whereas one school may be able to host 50 spectators in a gym, another may only be able to host 30 spectators due to the social distancing recommendations. This spectator threshold also changes depending on the activity in the gym as well. For example, Mundelein High School will be able to have 30 spectators in the gym for a basketball game but zero for a gymnastics meet although both competitions are held in the same gym.
Mundelein High School is planning on allowing spectators in our home competitions based on if social distancing recommendations will allow. Spectators will only be parents/relatives of players. The general public will not be allowed in MHS competitions as spectators. All MHS athletic events will be streamed and available to view virtually.
Girard clarified the district’s position Monday, saying “only 50 spectators allowed and those are reserved for families of players.”
One private school and one district replied stating discomfort with allowing spectators at first, with an openness to change that stance.
Mark Pos, the Athletic Director at Carmel Catholic:
For the first week or two we will not be allowing spectators. I want to make sure I get comfortable with taking care of the teams, game officials, and my table workers before I begin to bring in spectators. I have home boys games tomorrow and girls games on Saturday to focus in on teams, officials, and workers, so in a perfect world maybe we can bring spectators in starting early next week.
As for who will be able to attend, it will be two family members per player with one group coming in for the sophomore game and another group for the varsity game. For family members who are unable to attend, we will be live streaming of the all of our games (all levels).
From Brett Clark, Director of Communications for District 207:
While not currently allowing spectators to attend our events at this time, District 207, which includes Maine East, Maine South and Maine West High schools, is working towards making attendance possible for a limited number of immediate family member of the host athletes and coaches to attend in-person contests where facilities allow for the following of local and state guidelines. That decision and plan could be finalized by this week. For events scheduled in our smaller spaces, there will be no spectators allowed.
Most of our events are live streamed via each school’s respective YouTube Live account.
Maine East - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbFqR_luLOcSf42P2RYJUag
Maine South - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSyTJ7ElOeDQ0hkBQ1Yq-Cg
Maine West - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBdqGdS3oXSgtEbAQiQgBhA
We will continue to prioritize the safety of all associated with our events, as well as their families. Outdoor competitions, scheduled to take place later this semester will permit spectators per the guidelines. District 207 will allow spectators for these outdoor events as we did in the fall. These competitions will also be live streamed to the YouTube pages.
At this time, there is no plan for our home competitions to allow spectators from the visiting team.
The determination regarding spectators was determined with the health and safety of our student athletes, spectators and our overall community in mind
When I followed up with an email Monday asking why the district was not allowing spectators for events although public health guidelines allows for it, here was Clark’s reply:
As you know, this is all new territory and we want to be sure we are keeping the safety of students, staff and spectators at the forefront. As I shared, we are working on this and aiming to have spectators as early as this weekend.
Overall, the replies from all sources had a consistency of tone, how at a bare minimum, schools are desirous to let parents see their kids play live, in person.
This sentiment, but with still lingering concerns about spread of the virus when holding any sporting event, was spoken by Pos, Clark and two North Suburban Conference Athletic Directors in conversations I had last week.
Becky Belmont of Warren Township High School:
I want to at least get some (spectators) in. It’s obviously important to the parents to be able to support (the kids). If we can do it we want to do it. In the fall we weren’t allowed and that was hard on the parents. I want to try and accommodate them as much as we can.
And Lonnie Bible of Zion-Benton High School:
We’re being pretty restrictive to start with. Safety is truly our number one goal…we’d hate for something to break out and you lose the whole season as that could impact your athletes as well…so every school is determining that on their own
It appears, based on the responses I got, schools are determined to try to open its doors to a limited number of fans.
Here is a list of districts that responded to my email with a stated desire to allow for spectators:
113 (Deerfield/Highland Park)
115 (Lake Forest)
120 (Mundelein)
121 (Warren Township)
126 (Zion-Benton)
203 (New Trier)
211 (Hoffman Estates/Schaumburg/Palatine)
214 (Buffalo Grove/Hersey/Elk Grove/Prospect/Rolling Meadows/Wheeling)
Notre Dame College Prep
Here is a list of districts/schools that did reply with a ‘no spectator’ policy to start:
207 (Maine East, Maine West, Maine South)
219 (Niles North/Niles West)
Carmel Catholic
Here is list of districts/schools that did not reply to email:
60 (Waukegan)
65 (Evanston)
95 (Lake Zurich)
128 (Libertyville/Vernon Hills)
For the schools who didn’t reply, I don’t know what they plan to do. It’s possible they will follow the same procedures as most of the others (and allow for spectators) and didn’t feel it necessary to respond to inquiries from a reporter (wouldn’t be the first time or the last…no offense taken).
As we emerge out of Covid hibernation, a united effort by school officials to start things is a good sign. Pausing is likely to happen at some point, it’s been an untended consequence of co-existing with Covid almost everywhere. Outright canceling of seasons is a worst case scenario and remains a potential outcome. But the antithesis of reasonable action is remaining idle and fearful of what might happen when people enter a building.
There is no rational explanation (or one based on ‘health’ and ‘safety’) for any school or district I surveyed to not allow spectators inside for live games. The explanation from Pos at Carmel Catholic for delaying spectators is troublesome. Why should he need to be ‘made comfortable?’ What about the parents and family members that are forced to stay home and watch a stream? What about their comfort level?
And Clark, from District 207, his “this is all new territory and we want to be sure we are keeping the safety of students, staff and spectators at the forefront” answer for not allowing spectators is quite frankly, Covid-speak filibustering.
The same for one school in District 219, Niles West. Its Athletic Director Dana Krilich, said this in an email response Monday to question about spectators:
At this current time, our District has decided we will not allow spectators.
Here is photo of the Niles West gymnasium:
Huh? You can’t find a space for 50 people to watch a basketball game?
Any number of spectators allowed below the maximum of 50, that decision should be explained in detail. No spectators at all? If I had a kid playing basketball in that district, I’d be pounding on the gymnasium door, demanding a ticket inside.
The personal discomfort of those in charge, hiding behind the ‘health and safety’ shield, should not be a reason for denying an individual a right to watch their son or daughter play basketball in person.
More districts should be speaking the language of Johns, of District 225, about re-assessing as conditions merit.
Why should 50 spectators remain the limit all basketball season? Why can’t it increase to 100 later this month or 25% capacity in March or April if all goes well? Why can’t visiting fans be able to watch their kids play live? Streaming is a nice option but why should they have to choose?
If good is the enemy of great then stability is the adversary of mobility.
Return to play is filled with hard lessons requiring patience and virtue. More is needed. But the fight is not over.
Diligence to the best idea, not the one that makes those in charge feel comfortable, must remain top of mind.