Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eighth Grade Trip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and board spar over eighth‑grade Washington trip and equity
Summary
Public commenters and several board members raised concerns that a private Washington, D.C. trip serving District 97 students replicated the inequities the board sought to avoid when it stopped endorsing a district D.C. trip; the board asked administrators to study participation barriers and clarify whether the private trip is district‑endorsed.
A controversy over an eighth‑grade trip to Washington, D.C., surfaced at the Oak Park Elementary School District 97 board meeting on March 10 as parents and board members questioned whether recent private trips undercut the district’s equity goals.
At public comment, Bob Picaro urged the board to resume sending eighth‑graders to D.C., saying alternatives like St. Louis or Nashville created “shadow” trips that divide students along economic lines and that returning to D.C. would increase participation. Parent Courtney DePinto told the board she believed a board member used her status to organize a separate D.C. trip that excluded some families and created “social tiers,” and said her son was left out despite being interested.
The board and administrators said the district originally phased out a district‑sponsored D.C. trip because policy 6240 requires fee waivers that would have made it impossible to guarantee access to all eligible students. Board members said they remain concerned that private, parent‑organized trips that include many D97 students can reproduce the same inequity the district intended to avoid.
Administrators and board members discussed next steps: clarifying whether specific trips were advertised to or coordinated with D97 families, surveying recent trip participants, and reviewing whether additional guidance or clearer communication is needed to distinguish district‑endorsed trips from private ones. Superintendent staff said some survey results are expected back in time for the board’s April 14 meeting and that a fuller agenda discussion is scheduled for the April 14/28 cycle.
Board members emphasized two lines of inquiry: whether the district’s previous changes actually advanced equity (administrators acknowledged prior alternatives did not fully close the access gap) and what funds or policies could reduce exclusion if the district chooses to revisit D.C. or similar trips. Several members urged outreach to families who did not participate last year to learn whether cost, awareness, or other factors were deterrents.
The board did not take any immediate policy action on trips at the March 10 meeting; it requested more information and signaled it would place the topic on a future agenda for a fuller review.
