The Naperville School District 203 Board of Education on Sept. 8 received an annual discipline briefing showing the majority of students had no behavioral referrals, restraints and time-outs declined from the previous year, and a small share of students accounted for a disproportionate share of incidents. Board members pressed staff for incident-level, disaggregated outcome data and a regular reporting schedule to track equity and intervention effectiveness.

District staff told the board that since the start of the 2022–23 school year the district conducted 834 behavior threat assessments, with most assessed as “no threat” or “transient.” Presenters said physical restraints and time-outs are used only when a student’s behavior poses imminent danger and that reporting to the state (ISB as cited by staff) is required within 24 hours. Staff reported 58 restraints and 84 time-outs in the most recent school year, and said that represents less than 1% of the total student population for the grade bands cited.

At the high school level, staff reported 6,348 recorded behavior incidents for 2024–25; 65% of high school students had no referrals, and another 21% had one or two. Staff described a three-tier pattern: about 9% of students (tier 2) were responsible for roughly 29% of incidents, while about 5% of students (tier 3) accounted for roughly 50% of incidents. Presenters said attendance-related issues (truancy and tardies) together comprised more than 60% of disciplinary referrals, with class or school truancy making up about 2,100 incidents (about 33% of referrals) and tardies about 1,900 incidents (nearly 30%).

According to the presentation, most behavior incidents are handled without exclusionary discipline: roughly 21% are resolved with conferences (deans, counselors, parents), nearly half with lunch detention for attendance-related matters, and about 21% with before- or after-school detention. Exclusionary discipline is used in about 6% of incidents. Staff said referrals for fighting, bullying, harassment, or possession/use of alcohol, tobacco or drugs each comprised less than 1% of total disciplinary infractions.

Presenters called out demographic patterns: sophomores had the most referrals and the highest rates of exclusionary discipline; seniors had many referrals driven largely by attendance but the fewest suspensions. Staff said Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino students are overrepresented among those who receive exclusionary discipline, and that the pattern has changed little in recent years. Presenters cautioned that, because relatively few referrals lead to exclusionary discipline, small shifts in behavior can materially change percentage figures.

Board members sought much more granular information. Board member Melissa Kelly Black said: “Without accurate, outcome based data, we’re essentially being asked to govern in the dark.” She asked for incident-level and disaggregated data, outcomes (for example, reoffense or successful intervention), location and time of incidents, MTSS interventions used, and fidelity checks for restorative or training programs. Board member Holly Blastick asked for clear definitions after staff explained that a restraint is a hands-on intervention used when a student poses imminent danger and that a time-out is seclusion with staff in sight. Staff responded: “Last year, we had 58 restraints and 84 timeouts.”

Staff described supports now used: tiered instruction (MTSS/PBIS), student advocacy specialists who provide follow-up after suspendable offenses, social workers and counselors, small-group behavior academies, individualized coaching, and Panorama Student Perception Survey data on student belonging. Presenters said elementary belonging has held near 67% in recent years while secondary belonging grew from about 46% in 2021 to 55% by February 2025.

Directives and next steps emerged during the discussion. Staff said they are preparing a quarterly report to provide more regular, actionable information for interventions; presenters also identified the need to balance incident-level detail with student privacy constraints and state reporting rules. Board members and staff agreed to return with clearer, consistent benchmarks and a written specification of the data fields that will be provided to the board for oversight.

No formal board action was taken on the discipline presentation; the item was received and discussed.

Background: presenters said the annual briefing is provided under Board policy 07/1990 and that staff must follow state reporting requirements for restraints/time-outs. Board members noted the district uses MTSS and Panorama survey data to track belonging and climate.

The meeting also included a separate superintendent statement earlier in the agenda that the Innovative School Experience plan that had been presented earlier in the year was removed from the teacher contract and “is not moving forward.” Superintendent Dan (as identified in the record) answered a direct question from a board member about whether the district could implement the innovative day under the current contract, saying, “We cannot.”