Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge board to review Fisher Middle School discipline and raise equity concerns over boundaries
Summary
Two residents told the Indian Prairie CUSD 204 board that Fisher Middle School applies a rigid zero-tolerance disciplinary approach and that district boundary changes have concentrated low-income students at some schools, calling for resources and restorative practices.
Two residents urged the Indian Prairie CUSD 204 Board of Education on Oct. 6 to review disciplinary practices at Fisher Middle School and to address what they described as inequitable school boundary outcomes.
"Every member of this board needs to closely examine the restorative practices that the district champions on its website and consider how they can proactively implement it at Fisher," said Christina Garcia, a 17-year resident and parent. Garcia told the board she had been told Fisher enforces a mandatory one-day in-school suspension for a student who reacts physically even when provoked, and that this policy is applied "regardless of the context" and appears at odds with the flexibility she said the middle school handbook allows. She added that Fisher recorded 240 disciplinary actions in 2024, including 130 in-school suspensions and 110 out-of-school suspensions, higher than other middle schools in the district.
Alicia Smith, who said she lives in the Gompert attendance area and has family at Gompert and Fisher, tied the discipline concerns to broader equity questions raised by the district's boundary changes. Smith cited data she said are available on the Illinois School Report Card showing Georgetown, Longwood and McCarty elementary schools have low-income populations of about 63%, 58% and other rates she described as “more than triple” the district average of 21 percent. "The time is now to fix systemic equities in our educational system," Smith said, urging the district to address what she described as income segregation that she linked to racial achievement gaps.
Board members did not debate or take action during public comment; an administrator follow-up was promised as appropriate in the meeting’s public comment guidelines. The speakers recommended that the district provide more resources at Fisher and shift from punitive responses to restorative and resilience-building programs, naming conflict-management programs and therapy dogs as examples of supports they would like to see.
The comments were made during the allotted public-comment period; the board moved on to its consent agenda and other presentations after the speakers finished. The transcript does not record a board response or a formal directive to staff on the Fisher disciplinary issue during the Oct. 6 meeting.
Community members who wish to follow up can use the district’s public-comment guidance and the administrator follow-up process noted at the meeting.
