The CUSD 200 Board of Education spent the bulk of its Jan. 14 meeting discussing whether to adopt a local policy governing the placement and prominence of the American flag in classrooms after a parent and veteran raised concerns.

Superintendent Dr. Schuler framed three options for the board: make no change, ask the administration to develop an administrative procedure that documents how the district meets existing law, or ask the HR policy committee to draft a new local policy. He noted that Illinois law (the Illinois Flag Display Act) sets minimum display requirements and that the federal Flag Code provides advisory guidance on relative positioning when multiple flags are flown.

Why it matters: The question touches on how the district balances statutory requirements, classroom flexibility and enforceable policy. Board members emphasized they wanted any written guidance to be unambiguous so teachers and administrators would have clear direction rather than subjective standards that would be hard to enforce across hundreds of classrooms.

Board members who spoke during the exchange raised three recurring concerns: defining what legally constitutes a “flag” as opposed to posters or banners; avoiding language so subjective that it would be impossible to apply fairly in varied classroom layouts; and whether the district already meets statutory requirements.

Dr. Schuler told the board he did not believe the classroom at the center of the complaint violated the federal Flag Code and cautioned against assuming a willful statutory violation. “By my strict reading of the federal flag code, I do not believe there was any violation inside of that classroom,” he said.

Public comment on the issue included Tom Aiello, an Army veteran, who urged the board to “lead” and to ensure children see shared symbols that belong to the whole community: “You can show our children something rare right now, that even in a divided country, there are still shared symbols that belong to all of us,” Aiello said.

Board members proposed practical approaches to limit ambiguity. One board member suggested making the most objective rule possible — for example, requiring that the U.S. flag be the only flag placed in a classroom flag holder — because that would be clear, measurable and avoid subjective phrasing like “place of prominence.” Another suggestion was to provide staff education and ready-to-use materials from community partners such as veterans’ organizations before drafting enforceable policy.

Outcome and next steps: The board did not adopt a local classroom flag policy at the meeting. Instead, members asked the HR policy committee and administration to draft language — whether as an administrative procedure or a policy — that is unambiguous and enforceable, and to return with a written proposal. The board’s feedback emphasized focusing on the American flag alone and avoiding vague comparative language when possible.

The board’s action was procedural: it gave direction for additional drafting and review rather than taking a formal vote to change policy tonight.