Pittsburgh Public Schools has delayed the return to in-school instruction another two months, until April 6.

The district targeted the return to classroom instruction at the end of February.

One after the other, several board members spoke at their meeting Wednesday in support of continuing to teach classes online, though nearly all of them noted that it was a difficult decision and an imperfect solution.

“I want kids to come back to school, I want them back,” said Board President Sylvia Wilson. But without the staff, it’s not possible, she said. “The reality is people are concerned about their health. … We are concerned about the student’s health. We are concerned about the health of their families.”

The district will continue with fully remote learning until the start of the fourth quarter, April 6. In the meantime, the administration will continue monitoring local covid data and health guidance, as well as progress with vaccine distribution, to determine how to move forward.

Board members hope the delay will allow more time for teachers and staff to be vaccinated.

The measure passed 7-2, with board members Devon Taliaferro and Sala Udin voting against it.

“We’ve been putting a burden on people too long,” Taliaferro said. “But I think that if we don’t have a plan that’s going to really work in favor, then we need to go back to the drawing board and create one that does.”

The board agreed that the date to return to the classroom can be changed at any time.

Lengthy discussion

The vote followed a two-night public hearing process, each lasting several hours, in which students, families and district employees voiced their concerns both about reopening and with staying with remote learning.

Board members on Wednesday expressed concerns with transportation protocols, shortages in substitute teachers and other staff that could be exacerbated by in-school classes, and the vaccination of teachers, custodians, tech support and other employees. The Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers last week called for the board to delay a return to buildings until all teachers had the opportunity to be vaccinated.

“The reality is, today, we don’t have the ability to get our teachers vaccinated, or our other staff members,” said board member Terry Kennedy, noting regional and national shortages in vaccine supply. “I, too, would love to have our children back in school. But today, I’m not willing to ask someone to do something I’m not willing to do.”

The board also shared equity concerns for students who do not have equal access to the internet or the same ability to regularly log on for online class.

Change in who returns first

At the meeting, Kennedy and board member Pam Harbin quickly introduced an amendment to an original version of the resolution, to prioritize students with the greatest need as the first to be phased in, once in-person learning returns.

Harbin and Kennedy’s amendment puts an end to the learning cohorts the district had previously established, and charges Superintendent Anthony Hamlet and district administrators to do a new assessment determining which students have the greatest need for in-person learning.

A new survey will be sent to district parents and guardians to assess their comfort levels with in-person learning, transportation procedures and other aspects of a return to buildings. That information will lead to the development of new cohorts.

Students who require in-person instruction in order to receive a fair education will receive it, according to the amendment. Harbin said the amendment was meant to put added emphasis on students with special needs and individualized education plans (IEP).

“In the beginning, we made this about choice,” Harbin said. “Now we’re going to make it about need.”

All but board member Sala Udin voted to pass the amendment; Udin abstained.

Director blasts administration

Board member Kevin Carter berated the administration for its pace in creating a safe way for students to come back.

Carter had made a resolution in July to delay in-person instruction for the first quarter of the school year while district leaders came up with a detailed plan for returning to buildings. On Wednesday, he criticized administrators, saying they focused too much on developing a “flawed” hybrid model, rather than addressing health and safety concerns in buildings and perfecting remote learning.

Now, the district is “flailing” with an impossible decision that the public will hate, no matter which way they lean, he said.

“We could have spent from July 31 up until now planning something better, but it didn’t happen,” Carter said. “I’m tired of having to kick this can down the road because some people couldn’t get it done.”

Superintendent responds

Hamlet disagreed with Carter’s charges, defending the district’s “All In” campaign for hybrid learning that was based on recommendations from various committee members and community input.

Harbin said the amended resolution would offer a pivot to the way the board and district administrators have been working up until this point — to address changes in the way leaders are thinking and knowledge that has been gained about covid-19 transmission.

Most Pittsburgh students have been learning online since last March. School officials at the beginning of this month announced that the district had finally achieved a one-to-one ratio with students and computers.

Other districts returning to classrooms

The vote comes as city school districts nationwide discuss their plans to reopen. Most suburban districts in the Pittsburgh region have reopened for at least partial in-person instruction, and the Pennsylvania Department of Education has recommended in-person instruction for all elementary school students.

And many studies up to this point suggest that covid transmission is low in classroom settings. A report released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said schools are mostly safe to open if they require face masks and increase physical distance and testing.

Board: City isn’t the same

But board members noted that Pittsburgh schools are dealing with severe staff shortages and limitations of its buildings, as well as population density and use of public transportation that makes transmission in Pittsburgh communities much higher than rural areas.

Comparing Pittsburgh Public Schools to other districts is an unfair equivalency, board members said.

“I clearly understand everybody’s desire to come back and I appreciate the push to be looking at data, but I also have to explain to everybody that the data has to be looked at critically and it has to be questioned,” Harbin said. “I want to send them back when it’s safe and I want to send them back with the priority being for students with the most need.”

---

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)

---