Waukegan board debates handbook language for look‑alike firearms, other prohibited items

Waukegan CUSD 60 board members and staff on Monday discussed proposed changes to the student handbook that would refine how the district treats look‑alike firearms and other prohibited items, including whether some incidents should be referred to the board and how to classify items that are not actual weapons.

The discussion focused on three linked points: defining what counts as a look‑alike firearm, distinguishing look‑alike items from actual weapons such as box cutters or razor blades, and whether incidents that cause emotional harm should trigger a mandatory board referral. Staff said they will draft proposals and bring them back for further review with the district’s P‑TECH advisory group.

Board member Riddle asked staff where the board’s notice requirement would be added, saying he wanted incidents involving look‑alikes to “come to the board” so trustees could “have our eyes on it” without an intent to expel. Staff member Van de Broek explained why a reference had been recommended for removal in one draft: “So the reason that was recommended to be removed at this point is so that you had clarity along the continuum in the other items where reference to look alike weapons was not previously stated, and then there would be continuity across the buildings in what, discipline category or label was used if it didn't rise to the level of a mandatory expulsion recommendation.”

Director of Safety Wilson provided a working operational definition for administrators: “Generally, we consider anything that's a look alike weapon, but anything that can be mistaken as a firearm, a look alike firearm.” Board members repeatedly urged clarity because similar items can look very different depending on angle, lighting and design; several members noted the potential for a look‑alike to provoke a frightened reaction from students or staff even when no physical harm occurs.

Board members and staff weighed whether emotional harm should be added to the language describing Level 2 infractions and mandatory referral. One board member recommended adding the words “emotional harm” to the Level 2 weapons section so that incidents in which a student points a toy or look‑alike at another person would be treated with appropriate seriousness.

Members also asked staff to define several items more clearly. A board member asked what a “shock pen” meant; outreach staff Valdez explained it was the small novelty pen that delivers a mild shock. Board members pointed out that the draft lists pepper spray but does not specifically include tasers and asked staff either to add tasers explicitly or clarify where they are addressed. Staff confirmed pepper spray appears in the prohibited‑material definition and said similar clarifications could be added for other items.

Trustees discussed the longstanding distinction in the district’s code between Group A and Group B weapons offenses. Staff and Valdez explained that Group B language has historically allowed officials to categorize items (for example, knives, box cutters or razor blades) as weapons without triggering an automatic expulsion referral when administrators conclude the item was forgotten or not used to harm others. Board members emphasized that razor blades and box cutters are actual weapons and should be distinguished from look‑alike toy firearms.

Van de Broek told the board staff would take today’s feedback back to administration and develop “a couple of proposals most likely coming out of this discussion and ask that the P‑TECH weigh in on that as well and then bring the matter back within the student handbook recommendations.” The P‑TECH meeting was scheduled for June 3 at 4 p.m. at Lincoln Center; staff said the meeting will be available virtually but participants must contact studentoutreach@wps60.org for a Zoom link.

No formal policy vote was taken at the meeting. Trustees recessed the public meeting into closed session; the board later directed staff to return with draft language and options reflecting the clarifications requested by trustees.

The board’s next formal action on the handbook language will occur after staff drafts proposals and the P‑TECH advisory group reviews them.