Oak Park–River Forest committee reviews discipline disparities after parent raises suspension case

The Culture, Climate and Behavior Committee of Oak Park - River Forest SD 200 on March 18 reviewed state disciplinary-disparity data and the district's Behavior Education Plan after a parent and advocate raised concerns about a pending suspension that they said followed years of bullying.

Megan Jackson, who identified herself as a former public school teacher and an education-services provider, told the committee she is representing a family with a student recommended for a 10-day suspension and possible expulsion. Jackson said the student "was not actually able to learn in a safe environment free from bullying, harassment, and discrimination" and asked the committee to review how the district interprets the BEPparticularly language that treats "any object" used to cause harm as a weapon. "Families with single Black mothers and gifted Black female children are being treated extremely poorly by staff and administrators," Jackson said, and requested follow-up from the committee ahead of a suspension hearing.

Why it matters: District administrators told the committee that, while OPRF's overall suspension rate is low (about 0.5 percent of students), the state flagged the district because of racial disproportionality: administrators said there were 19 out-of-school suspensions last year in a student body of roughly 3,000 and that 18 of those 19 suspended students were nonwhite. State review triggers a required disciplinary-improvement response and asks the district to examine whether policies or their application result in disproportionate exclusion of nonwhite students.

District presentation and policy overview The presenter leading the discipline review (administration representative) described the Behavior Education Plan (BEP) as a protective — not prescriptive — framework intended to emphasize restorative and reflective practices over punitive responses. He said a limited set of behaviors are treated as automatically eligible for out-of-school suspension or expulsion referrals (for example: possession of a firearm, large-quantity drug distribution, arson, or other serious misconduct). The presenter said some behaviors begin at a lower BEP level and require repeated conduct to escalate to a level that would permit out-of-school suspension.

On the question of weapons, the presenter confirmed that the BEP and board policy define a weapon to include knives, brass knuckles and "any other object" used or attempted to be used to cause bodily harm. When the public commenter asked whether that could include ordinary items such as a pencil, the presenter answered, "Any object. That's correct," and said the policy is applied in context and with case-by-case review.

Process and protections for students with disabilities The presenter explained that if a student has an Individualized Education Program (IEP), a manifestation-determination review (MDR) must be held promptly to determine whether the conduct was a manifestation of the student's disability. The presenter said the MDR is required by federal/state special-education process and is intended to pause an expulsion when the misconduct was linked to disability or the IEP was not followed; if the MDR clears the school's position, the case can proceed through hearing procedures and, potentially, to the board.

Data, disparity and efforts to reduce exclusions The administration said OPRF's suspension count dropped from 66 in the 2022-23 school year to 19 in the following year and remained at 19 the most recent year; the presenter emphasized that despite the low absolute number, the state flags the distribution of suspensions when a disproportionate share involves nonwhite students. The district described a range of trauma-responsive measures it has deployed, including social workers, child interventionists, CPI de-escalation training for safety staff, and relationship-based interventions designed to prevent escalation to suspension.

Committee questions and next steps Committee members pressed administration on several points: how the weapon definition is applied in practice; whether suspension-review hearings and MDRs are sequenced consistently; what proportion of suspended students come from nontraditional feeder districts; and who receives CPI training. Members and the public urged the committee to clarify its role in follow-up and accountability. The chair and other members suggested adding a future agenda item to consider the specific case raised in public comment and to clarify the committee's remit for recommending policy or implementation changes.

What the meeting decided The committee did not take a formal disciplinary action at the meeting. The minutes from the Feb. 18, 2026 committee meeting were approved by voice vote. The committee agreed to consider adding an agenda item at a future meeting to continue the public-comment concerns and to discuss whether specific recommended language or actions should be drafted and returned for committee review.

A note on procedure and timing District staff told the committee that the MDR for students with disabilities must take place promptly (the presenter said it is required within a short statutory timeframe) and that expulsions may last up to two years under state law, though a student who successfully completes an expulsion term may be eligible to return earlier.

The committee adjourned at approximately 7:55 p.m. with the follow-up items to be scheduled for a future meeting.