Students, parents urge Sycamore board to restore advanced science classes as master schedule nears finalization

Students and parents told the Sycamore CUSD 427 Board of Education that repeated cancellations of advanced science classes are harming college‑bound students and asked the board to act as the district finalizes next year’s master schedule.

Marion Fisher, a senior at Sycamore High School, told the board, “As we navigate an era defined by rapid technological advancement, scientific innovation, and global challenges, a strong foundation in science is more critical than ever.” Fisher said AP science courses give students “a rigorous college level curriculum that fosters critical thinking” and improve college admissions prospects.

Lily Jones, a current junior, said she learned this year that “essential advanced science courses are not running next year,” a change she called “a huge blow.” Jones, who said she planned to pursue biology in college, said missing a year of science would leave students “unprepared” and repeated that advanced science offerings have been inconsistent: “Two years ago, AG Bio didn’t run. This year, Advanced Chemistry didn’t run. And next year, neither of them will run.”

Mary Fisher, a parent, cited board policy language as part of her argument. She read section text into the record and said, “Section 6.6 curriculum content states, in grades 9 through 12, subjects include ... science, mathematics ... This policy doesn't say subjects might include; it says subjects include.” She also referred to policy 6.4, saying it requires minimum enrollments for courses and argued the district is not meeting its responsibility to students.

Board members and administrators acknowledged the problem but said course offerings are set through the high school master schedule and staffing process. In response to questions about timing, the superintendent said the administration will present the financial plan and the master schedule to the full board on April 22, and that the master schedule — which determines what classes run in a given year — is still being finalized.

Board members and speakers discussed possible approaches raised during public comment, including alternating course availability across years (running AP Biology and Advanced Chemistry in alternating years), grouping students who sign up to reach enrollment thresholds, and leveraging dual‑credit or university partnerships to provide gaps in course availability. One board member noted past cooperation with Northern Illinois University for advanced coursework and other avenues for students seeking advanced content.

Administrators and board members described constraints that shape offerings: master‑schedule complexity at the high school, district policy thresholds for minimum class size (the transcript references a 15‑student threshold for academic courses and 10 for vocational courses), and staffing and budget timelines for purchasing materials and arranging professional development.

Discussion on the master schedule indicated the board delegates the mechanical construction of the master schedule to administration, while course approvals (adding or removing courses from the course manual) are presented to the board. The superintendent said staffing changes and curriculum resource approvals are planned for the April 22 presentation so purchases and training can proceed.

Why it matters: Students and parents said the repeated loss of advanced science courses reduces opportunities for college preparation and may disadvantage students applying to competitive programs. The board and administration said the master‑schedule and staffing processes drive course availability and that the April 22 presentation will show what the district can staff and offer next year.

Clarifying details from the meeting: speakers referenced board policy section 6.6 (curriculum content) and policy 6.4 (curriculum development/enrollment thresholds); the high school master schedule serves roughly 1,200 students and is described as a complex task administration has been assembling since January; administration scheduled the staffing and master schedule presentation for April 22.

No formal board vote on course restorations occurred at the meeting. Instead the board heard public comment, asked questions of staff and discussed possible policy or procedural responses. The transcript shows follow‑up steps: administration will present the staffing plan and master schedule to the full board on April 22, and the board signaled interest in further review through its teaching and learning committee and upcoming committee work.

The board received multiple public comments on the topic that the board and administration said they will continue to review as they finalize staffing and the master schedule.